AMITAVA LALA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners made this writ petition under a representative capacity in the form of society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1983 with an objection of defending and protecting the interest of the shopkeepers of old Workmen Line Market and Northland Estate Market at Ichapore. ( 2 ) LONG back said markets were established by the Ministry of Defence on lands owned by the said Ministry for catering to the diverse needs to the defence personnels. ( 3 ) FOR the purpose of establishment of the said markets, the concerned respondents divided the market area into small plots of land and settled such plots of land and persons desiring to run shops reserving rent for the said plots of lands conferring right upon the tenants inducted to construct at their cost pucca structures. ( 4 ) ACCORDINGLY, all persons accepted the settlement of plots of lands and constructed structures upon the vacant lands and began to run their shops. ( 5 ) ACCORDINGLY to the petitioner, they are non-agricultural tenants as would be evident from the letter No. 1362/w dated 13th August, 1954 issued by the then Director General of the Ordnance Factory, Calcutta. ( 6 ) SHOPKEEPERS were all along paying their respective rents to the authority concerned till such time they were stopped to pay the same. ( 7 ) DISPUTE cropped up with regard to enhancement of rates as it is evident from the part and parcel of the petition. ( 8 ) AS a result whereof the petitioners were served with the notice by the authorities under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. ( 9 ) THE said notice was challenged under the writ petition in the year 1989 and since then the petitioners are enjoying the interim order as obtained in terms of prayer (f) as follows :"pending herein of the rule to restrain the respondents 1-6, their Officers and men from continuing with for treating up any fresh proceeding under Central Act, 40 of 1971 and from interfering in any manner with the possession and business of the members of the petitioners' Association mentioned above". ( 10 ) BY the process the petitioners are enjoying the fruits of the interim order of this Court without payment or enhancing payment of any rent to the respondent-authorities. ( 10 ) BY the process the petitioners are enjoying the fruits of the interim order of this Court without payment or enhancing payment of any rent to the respondent-authorities. ( 11 ) AS and when the main writ petition came up for hearing, petitioners contended that they have made two interlocutory applications in connection with the writ petition which are pending before this Court. ( 12 ) INITIALLY, with the supporting affidavit of 28th May, 1992 an application was made by the petitioners for incorporation of certain names of the members of the Association as shown under Annexure 'a' to the petition which is still pending. ( 13 ) EVEN during the pendency of the writ petition they have made further application on the similar line in respect of more or less self-same persons to be added as petitioners in the writ petition with a supporting affidavit dated 11th January, 1999 being CAN No. 195 of 1995, which is still pending. ( 14 ) BOTH the applications, therefore, stand on the same footing and since this Court is inclined to proceed with the main writ petition, question of addition of parties become mere formality as such the same is allowed. ( 15 ) ANOTHER application was also made by the petitioner being CAN No. 553 of 1999 with a supporting affidavit dated 21st January, 1999 to accept an affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by a person and reject the affidavit affirmed by another one. But I do not find there is any necessity of the same to do the needful at this stage when the Court hearing the main writ petition on all points irrespective of the facts enumerated therein or drawn attention by the learned Counsels in this respect. Therefore, such application was rendered infructuous at this stage. ( 16 ) ON the other hand, the respondents took out an application dated 14th January, 1999 to vacate the interim order of injunction granted by this Court on 17th November, 1989. I also consider this application rendered infructuous since this Court inclined to dispose of the main writ petition. ( 17 ) AFTER overcoming the technicalities, this Court entered upon the arena of the dispute but found certain grievances are of the civil nature which are to be adjudicated by the Civil Court. I also consider this application rendered infructuous since this Court inclined to dispose of the main writ petition. ( 17 ) AFTER overcoming the technicalities, this Court entered upon the arena of the dispute but found certain grievances are of the civil nature which are to be adjudicated by the Civil Court. ( 18 ) LEARNED counsel on behalf of petitioners contended the following : (a) The petitioners have obtained their right in respect of the land in question as non-agricultural tenants in the year 1954 which cannot be said to be unauthorised at this belated stage; (b) Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 has no application in this respect; (c) The structures constructed by the tenants on the land obtained by settlement. Therefore, such structures are rent-free; (d) Rent, if any, whether will be increased or not cannot be decided under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. ( 19 ) ANOTHER important reason for invocation of writ jurisdiction by the petitioners is to get issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents Nos. 1 to 6 to abolish the system of calling tenders and execution of periodic leases and to direct them further to determine and fix rents of all shopkeepers being members of the writ petitioners' Association on fair, equitable and uniform basis according to provisions of West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act. ( 20 ) THIS part of the disputes relates to a different chapter altogether. Petitioners themselves contended that periodic leases were granted by the authority concerned in favour of the petitioners on a number of occasions. ( 21 ) ON the other hand, the respondents contended that the periodic leases were expired, as per individual lease agreement, by efflux of time. Therefore, they are entitled for eviction and, accordingly, notices were served upon most of the petitioners under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. ( 22 ) THEREFORE, the disputes are in respect of the determination of the right, title or interest as well as evictions from the respective plots of land by way of determination of lease by efflux of time. These disputes also cannot, obviously, be determined under the writ jurisdiction of this Court. ( 22 ) THEREFORE, the disputes are in respect of the determination of the right, title or interest as well as evictions from the respective plots of land by way of determination of lease by efflux of time. These disputes also cannot, obviously, be determined under the writ jurisdiction of this Court. ( 23 ) MOREOVER, one important aspect arises from the individual lease agreement that there is an arbitration clause by which all disputes and differences arising out of or in any way touching or concerning the agreement other than such matters, for which specific provisions have otherwise been made under this agreement be referred to the sole arbitration of the Director General, Ordnance Factories and if the Director General, Ordnance Factory is unable or unwilling to act as the sole arbitrator some other person appointed by the Director General willing to act on such arbitrator. There will be no objection to any such appointment that arbitrator so appointed is a Government servant that he had to deal with matters to which this agreement relates and that in course of his duties of such Government servant, he has expressed views on all or any of the matters in dispute or difference. The award of the arbitrator so appointed shall be final and binding on the parties subject to as aforesaid, the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act of 1940 or any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof and of the rules made thereunder for the time being in force shall apply to the arbitration proceedings under this clause. ( 24 ) THEREFORE, not only the disputes as above are to be adjudicated under civil suits but arbitration clause is available for application on certain occasion as against lessee in respect of independent leasehold interest. ( 25 ) IN the midst of the argument in between the parties, this Court suggested by saying that the disputes of the petitioners can be referred for consideration by the authority concerned upon giving opportunity of hearing and by passing a reasoned order but the petitioners are not inclined to go back to the hands of the authority concerned, thereby the situation becomes too worse. ( 26 ) THE authority concerned admitted in the open Court that they are well aware that the fair rent cannot be determined under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 but then asked themselves where is the end of litigation. Neither the petitioners will release the premises nor they will increase their rents and occupy huge area of land which cannot be allowed to go on for an indefinite period. They are also the victim of interim order for last 10 years. ( 27 ) MR. Samarendra Narayan Chowdhury, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the writ petitioners cited various judgments in support of their contentions. They cited AIR 1986 SC 872 (Express Newspapers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India) and contended that when constructions are made with he sanction of the lessor/union of India by no process of reasoning, be regarded as public premises belonging to the Central Government and such act cannot be applicable therein and appropriate proceeding is filing of suit by them. ( 28 ) HE also cited another judgment reported in AIR 1976 SC 1637 (New Delhi Municipal Committee v. Kalu Ram) to establish that there is no sanction under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act to recover the arrears of rent. ( 29 ) HE further cited another three judgments serially i. e. , AIR 1989 SC 1642 (M/s. Dwarka Das Marfatia and Sons v. Board of Trustees of Port of Bombay); AIR 1991 SC 855 (Ashoka Marketing Ltd. v. Punjab National Bank) and AIR 1993 Calcutta 102 (M/s. Accounting and Secretarial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India ). In the Calcutta High Court judgment, both the ratio of the Supreme Court judgments were followed by a single Bench of this Hon'ble Court. ( 30 ) IT appears that the ratio of AIR 1989 SC 1642 is that a public body should not act as a profit - making unit in enhancing the rents or to eject the tenants from their respective properties as private landlords or are likely to be. Thereafter, the learned counsel referred to the part of page 882 of the judgment reported in AIR 1991 SC 855 to establish that the ratio of earlier Supreme Court judgment was explained in the later judgment. Thereafter, the learned counsel referred to the part of page 882 of the judgment reported in AIR 1991 SC 855 to establish that the ratio of earlier Supreme Court judgment was explained in the later judgment. ( 31 ) THE judgment is cited by the learned counsel on behalf of the writ petitioners are based on certain facts which may not be similar with the facts situation herein. ( 32 ) THE grievance of the respondent-authorities are that if the rights are to be adjudicated in a civil suit as to why they will suffer for a period of 10 years under interim order of the Court. In fact, they want to get rid of the situation by a solution. ( 33 ) MR. Hirak Kumar Mitra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-authority contended that the writ petition is not maintainable. The act of 1971 is directly applicable in this case. The Union of India is under no obligation to institute any suit to get rid of the persons. ( 34 ) IN fact, under the writ petition they have asked for (I) declaration of title; (II) challenging the authority of the respondent to raise the amount of rent; (III) declaration to the effect that the terms of the contract of the lease is not enforceable against them; (IV) tenancy/lease is heritable; (V) the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 is not applicable; (VI) declaration under the Act that the petitions are governed by the West Bengal Non-agricultural Tenancy with such omnibus prayers having based upon disputed questions of fact and cannot be decided in the Constitutional writ jurisdiction. ( 35 ) IN this respect he relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1992 SC 1018 (State of Rajasthan v. Bhawani Singh) to establish that disputed questions relating to title cannot be gone into or adjudicated in writ petition and in such case petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 36 ) I have carefully considered the pros and cons of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on behalf of the respective clients. It is true that the aforesaid tenancy rights cannot be adjudged in a writ petition but subject-matter of suits which are to be instituted by the individual lessee/occupant/tenant to establish their individual rights before the civil Court. It is true that the aforesaid tenancy rights cannot be adjudged in a writ petition but subject-matter of suits which are to be instituted by the individual lessee/occupant/tenant to establish their individual rights before the civil Court. On the other hand, it is also true that without such adjudication finally all such questions cannot be adjudicated on the basis of a notice under Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, because this requires only eviction without realisation of the arrears of rent and various other factors which cannot be possibly part and parcel of the act alone. More particularly, the implementation of the act may not give final relief to the respondents. For an example, according to the respondents, the subject-matters are only applicable in respect of the suits but the Union of India has no obligation to institute the suits but to give effect to the act immediately in a summary manner. Assuming before taking a recourse of such notice, a suit instituted by any lessee/occupants/tenants, there would not be any solution, again stalemate condition will prevail. It is an admitted position such notices were not issued in respect of all the occupants. Moreover, there is a clause of arbitration which is also to be remembered. Therefore, longevity of the proceedings cannot be curtailed. Multiplicity of the proceedings and wastage of money cannot be avoided. ( 37 ) THEREFORE, if no writ, suits or arbitration have prevailing effect by the intervention of either of the parties, dismissal of the writ petition, in limine also cannot help the parties towards finality. ( 38 ) UNDER these circumstances, this Court observed that a workable order has to be passed to minimise the huge cost of litigations from the public exchequer and to avoid delay and to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings in Court and at the same time finalise the issue. Individual clauses of arbitrations are also superseded to avoid objections as to go back before the appropriate authority under the arbitration clause because it has limited scope. ( 39 ) THEREFORE, a high powered Committee has to be formed for the purpose of making a report with suggestions to the authority to take appropriate steps in connection thereto. The Committee will act as Commission for this respect. The suggestions of the Committee will have binding effect upon the parties. ( 39 ) THEREFORE, a high powered Committee has to be formed for the purpose of making a report with suggestions to the authority to take appropriate steps in connection thereto. The Committee will act as Commission for this respect. The suggestions of the Committee will have binding effect upon the parties. The nature of the works of the Committee will be as follows : (a) Survey of the land through the respective surveyor provided by the authority concerned; (b) They will investigate the nature of occupation and the construction of the respective premises; (c) They will scrutinise all the papers and documents in connection with the individual plots of land; (d) They will look into how the total area has been given to the concerned occupants; (e) They will take into account mode of payment, arrears of rent and payability aspect; (f) They will consider the leasehold right specially whether any perpetuality occurs or not; (g) If occasion arises, they will also suggest the authorities about the eviction process; (h) In case of any alternative mode, they will have the right to suggest about increase of rent after making an appropriate rental valuation; (i) They will also consider whether any rehabilitation is feasible to shift them to any other plots to clear up the premises for the purpose of defence requirement; (j) They will also suggest demolition process in the circumstances; (k) They will also consider effect or further effect of the notice under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and further notices, if any; (l) All such measures will be completed upon giving opportunities of hearing to the parties. ( 40 ) THEREFORE, the Committee is constituted by Mr. Justice Prodayet Kumar Banerjee, Retired Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court and Mr. Justice Bhagawati Prosad Banerjee, a Retired Judge of this Hon'ble Court, to be assisted by Mr. Chittaranjan Pandey-II, an Advocate of this Hon'ble Court, to ascertain the position as aforesaid, furnish a report on that score. Such suggestions will have binding effect upon the parties. ( 41 ) REMUNERATIONS of the first two members of the Committee are fixed at 300 G. Ms. for last member as 150 G. Ms. respectively per sitting for any services to be rendered by them in this respect. Such suggestions will have binding effect upon the parties. ( 41 ) REMUNERATIONS of the first two members of the Committee are fixed at 300 G. Ms. for last member as 150 G. Ms. respectively per sitting for any services to be rendered by them in this respect. Since the appointments are not made for any usual purpose, remuneration can be enhanced at the request by all or any member of the Committee. Payments of such remunerations will be given by the authority concerned and appropriated from the rental income in case it is surplus. Members of the Committee will intervene in the matter within a period of fortnight from the date of communication of the order and finally publish their report with copies to the parties through their representatives within a period of eight months from the date of their intervention. If such members of the Committee suggest immediate removal of the occupants as an interim measure by furnishing any interim report, the respondents will be entitled to remove them within a period of two weeks thereafter. The security personnel of the defence factory and local police authority will render all co-operation to the members of the Committee for all necessary actions. ( 42 ) THEREFORE, the writ petition stands disposed of with the order aforesaid. Interim order, if any, stands vacated but effect will be subject to interim or final report to be furnished by the Committee. ( 43 ) PARTIES will be entitled to for urgent xeroxed certified copy of the judgment and order within a period of seven days from the date of putting requisition. Order accordingly.