Jyotirmay Bhattacharya ( 1 ) THIS application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgement and order dated 22. 12. 2003 passed by the Estate Officer, life Insurance Corporation of India, Eastern Zone, Kotkata, appointed under section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) in case No. EO/71/0603/misc of 2002. ( 2 ) BY the order impugned the petitioners' application under section 7 (1) of the said Act was rejected by the Estate Officer. ( 3 ) THE petitioners were the lessees in respect of Flat No. 11 of Metropolitan building, 3rd floor, Premises No. 7, Jawahar Lal Nehru Road, Kolkata-700013. ( 4 ) THE term of the lease period expired by efflux of time on 31. 7. 1988. Thereafter, the L. I. C. I. landlord/opposite party herein, continued to realise rent from the petitioners till April, 1997. The petitioners though tendered rent to the opposite party herein for the subsequent period but the opposite party refused to accept the same. ( 5 ) ULTIMATELY, an eviction notice dated 19. 8. 2002 was served upon the petitioners herein. The said notice was received by the petitioners on 24. 10. 2002. The petitioners also replied to the said notice by their letter dated 15. 11. 2002. ( 6 ) SINCE in spite of receipt of the said notice, the petitioners did not deliver vacant possession of the said flat to the opposite party herein, an eviction proceeding was started by the L. I. C. I. , opposite party herein against the petitioners in May, 2003. ( 7 ) THEREAFTER on 30. 12. 2002, the petitioners filed an application under section 7 (l)of the said Act before the Estate Officer, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the opposite party herein for acceptance of the current monthly rent including arrears from the petitioners in respect of the said flat in question. ( 8 ) SUCH an application was rejected by the Estate Officer by the order impugned which is under challenge in this application under Article 227 of the constitution of India. ( 9 ) BY relying upon a decision of this Court in C. O. No. 2729/98, Castle Wood (India) vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, reported in AIR 2001 Cal. 15 , mr. ( 9 ) BY relying upon a decision of this Court in C. O. No. 2729/98, Castle Wood (India) vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, reported in AIR 2001 Cal. 15 , mr. Kumar, learned Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, submits that the dispute as to whether the provision of section 7 (1) of the said Act can be availed of by the tenant before the Estate Officer or not, is no longer res Integra as this hon'ble Court in the said decision has already decided that a lawful occupier can invoke the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer under section 7 (1) of the said act for passing necessary orders in this regard. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, by relying upon the said judgment, Mr. Kumar submits that the Estate Officer acted illegally by not following the principles as laid down in the said decision of this Hon'ble Court. ( 11 ) MR. Kumar further submits that even the pendency of the S. L. P. against the said judgment of this Court cannot debar the petitioners from applying under the said provisions particularly, when no order has been passed by the hon'ble Supreme Court staying the operation of the order of this Court as aforesaid till date. ( 12 ) MR. Kumar further submits that since the L. I. C. I. , the opposite party herein, continued to realise rent from the petitioners even after the expiry of the lease period, the petitioners have become tenants by holding over. Manoj M. Ghosh us. Life Insurance Corpn. of India (J. Bhattacharya, J.) 13 ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY, Mr. Kumar submits that the petitioners cannot be described as "unlawful occupiers" of the flat in question. ( 14 ) THUS, Mr. Kumar submits that the application under section 7 ( 1) of the said Act filed by the petitioners who are lawful occupiers of the said flat cannot be rejected by the Estate Officer on the ground as mentioned in the order impugned. ( 15 ) MR. Kundu, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party, referred to another unreported decision of this Hon'ble Court in C. O. No. 2675/03, Vishnu spun Concrete Industries Put. ( 15 ) MR. Kundu, learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party, referred to another unreported decision of this Hon'ble Court in C. O. No. 2675/03, Vishnu spun Concrete Industries Put. Ltd. vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, wherein this Hon'ble Court held that section 7 (1) of the said Act is an "enabling provision" which authorises the L. I. C. I. authority to realise rent from the tenants under section 7 (1) of the said Act. ( 16 ) BY relying upon the said decision, Mr. Kundu submits that the said decision makes it amply clear that the application of the petitioners under section 7 of the said Act cannot be entertained. According to Mr. Kundu, the estate Officer did not commit any illegality by rejecting the petitioners' said application under section 7 (1) of the said Act. ( 17 ) HEARD the learned Advocates of the parties. Considered the materials on record. ( 18 ) ON consideration of the provisions of section 7 (1) of the said Act coupled with the prescribed forms for issuance of notice to show cause in connection with the proceeding under section 7 (1) of the said Act and the format of the order to be passed in connection therewith, this Court is also of the view that the said provision authorises the L. I. C. I. to realise rent from the tenant. ( 19 ) THEREFORE, the opposite party can realise rent from the tenant by invoking the provisions of section 7 (1) of the said Act. The said provision, in my view, cannot be invoked by the tenant for compelling the L. I. C. I. to accept rent from the tenant. ( 20 ) IN any event, even the citation which was referred to by Mr. Kumar in the case of Castle Wood (India) vs. L. I. C. I. (supra), has made it amply clear that section 7 of the said Act should be interpreted as an enabling provision which authorises a lawful occupier to come up before the Estate Officer before he is illegally branded as a defaulter and a notice of eviction is served upon him. ( 21 ) THUS, even the said decision makes it clear that once an eviction notice is served upon the tenant, the tenant cannot apply under section 7 (1) of the said Act for deposit of the rent before the Estate Officer. ( 21 ) THUS, even the said decision makes it clear that once an eviction notice is served upon the tenant, the tenant cannot apply under section 7 (1) of the said Act for deposit of the rent before the Estate Officer. ( 22 ) THE occupation of the tenant becomes unauthorised after service of eviction notice upon the tenant in view of the definition of unauthorised occupation as per section 2 (g) of the said Act. ( 23 ) I have already indicated above that the eviction notice dated 19. 8. 2002 was served upon the petitioners on 24. 10. 2002. The petitioners also replied to the said eviction notice by their letter dated 15. 11. 2002 and the eviction proceeding was also initiated by the opposite party in May, 2003. The instant application under section 7 (1) was filed by the petitioners on 30. 12. 2002. Accordingly, there is no dispute to the effect that the application under section 7 (1) of the said Act was filed after the service of notice of eviction upon the petitioners. ( 24 ) IN such view of the matter, even the decision which was cited by Mr. Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioners cannot help the petitioners in any way. ( 25 ) ACCORDINGLY, I hold that the order impugned does not warrant any interference by this Court. This revisional application thus stands rejected. ( 26 ) THERE will, however, be no order as to costs. Revisional application rejected.