JUDGMENT Bhaskar Bhattacharya, J 1. In all these nine applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the sole question that arises for determination is whether an employee of Railway re-employed after attaining the age of superannuation can be said to be a "Government employee" within the meaning of section 29(B) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act ("Act"). 2. The petitioner herein started nine different proceedings under section 29(B) of the Act against his nine tenants for eviction on the ground of reasonable requirement. There is no dispute that the present petitioner was a Railway Doctor and was re-employed in the capacity of Medical Officer against the vacant post of DMO(G). There is also no dispute that at the time of filing of the present proceedings he was in re-employment as such. The case made out by the petitioner in all these nine applications is that he reasonably required the suit property for his own use and occupation inasmuch as he has been asked to vacate the Government quarter in his possession as he is the owner of the disputed property. 3. The aforesaid proceeding has been contested by the tenants thereby disputing the allegation of the petitioner made in the application under section 29(B) of the Act. 4. Ultimately, by the orders impugned in these applications, the Rent Controller has dismissed all the aforesaid proceedings on the sole ground that a person 're-employed after retirement cannot be said to be a "Government employee" within the meaning of section 29(B) of the Act. It appears from the orders impugned herein that the Rent Controller has not gone into the other questions of merit. 5. Being dissatisfied, the petitioner has come up in revision. 6. Mr. Roychowdhury, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends before this court that his client being re-employed as Medical Officer by the Railway, should be treated as a Government employee. In support of such contention Mr. Roychowdhury places before this court various Rules showing that the conditions of re-employment is almost the same as those of regular service, except that the period of extension was limited for a particular period. Mr. In support of such contention Mr. Roychowdhury places before this court various Rules showing that the conditions of re-employment is almost the same as those of regular service, except that the period of extension was limited for a particular period. Mr. Roychowdhury therefore contends that at the time of institution of the proceedings his client being a Government employee, was entitled to maintain such applications and the Rent Controller refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by law by not entertaining such application.' 7. Mr. Ghosh, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the tenants has however opposed the aforesaid contenti6n of Mr. Roychowdhury and has contended that the petitioner cannot be said to be a Government employee. In support of such contention Mr. Ghosh has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of the Provident Fund Inspector, Guntur vs. T.S. Hariharan, reported in AIR 1971 SC 1519 . Mr. Ghosh further contends that apart from the aforesaid question, in order to obtain an order for eviction under section 29(B) of the Act, the petitioner must not only prove that he was a Government employee at the relevant point of time but also that he was asked to vacate any residential premises allotted to him by his employer pursuant to such re-employment and that he owns a residential accommodation either in his own name or in the name of his wife or dependent child at or near the place where he is posted for the time being. According to Mr. Ghosh the petitioner has not been allotted the accommodation given to him at Sealdah pursuant to his reemployment and that the suit property is also not situated near to his place of his posting which is Kanchrapara. Mr. Ghosh therefore contends that the ingredients of section 29(B) have not been fulfilled. 8. After hearing the learned Counsels for the parties and after going through the materials on record. I find substance in the contention of Mr. Roychowdhury that the petitioner must be held to be a Government employee within the meaning of section 29(B) of the Act. In the case of the Provident Fund Inspector, Guntur (supra) cited by Mr. 8. After hearing the learned Counsels for the parties and after going through the materials on record. I find substance in the contention of Mr. Roychowdhury that the petitioner must be held to be a Government employee within the meaning of section 29(B) of the Act. In the case of the Provident Fund Inspector, Guntur (supra) cited by Mr. Ghosh it has been held by the Apex Court that employment of a person for whatsoever or for a short duration or for a period of one year is not employment contemplated by section1(3)(a) & (b) of the' Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1950. In my opinion, the principle laid down by the Apex Court does not apply to a case under section 29(B) of the Act. The object of the legislature in enacting section 29(B) of the Act was to give relief to any Government employee who has been asked to vacate any residential accommodation given to him as such employee by reason of the fact that he owns a house either in his own name or in the name of his wife or dependent child at or near the place where he is posted for the time being. Therefore, even if a re-employed Government employee is asked to vacate any official accommodation given to him on the ground that he owns a house as mentioned above at or near the place of his posting, he can approach the Rent Controller for eviction of his tenant of such building. Therefore, a re-employed person, in my view, is also entitled to maintain such an application provided other conditions mentioned in section 29(B) are satisfied. 9. Since in the instant case, the Rent Controller has not decided other questions raised by Mr. Ghosh as to whether the Government accommodation at Sealdah can be said to be "any residential premises allotted to him by his employer" or whether the suit property is situated at or near the place of his posting, I am not going into those questions and those questions are left open for adjudication by the Rent Controller on the basis of materials that may be placed before him. 10. Under the aforesaid circumstances, I set aside the orders passed by the Rent Controller in all these nine proceedings and direct him to decide other questions as mentioned above on merit. 10. Under the aforesaid circumstances, I set aside the orders passed by the Rent Controller in all these nine proceedings and direct him to decide other questions as mentioned above on merit. Since the matter is pending for a long time and in this court for the last seven years, the Rent Controller is directed to dispose of those proceedings within two months from the date of communication of this order. 11. The revisional applications are thus allowed. In the facts and circumstances there will be however no order as to costs. Revisional applications allowed.