Judgment PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. All these matters were assigned before this Bench for early hearing of the matters in question. The writ petitioners/appellants have challenged the action taken by the State of West Bengal against the notices of eviction issued under Section 11 of the West Bengal Government Premises (Regulation of Occupancy) Act, 1984 [hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1984]. When the matter came up before us earlier on 10th December, 2007, the Learned Advocate appearing in support of the appeal as well as on behalf of the appellant prayed for Leave to file a short supplementary affidavit to all these matters before this Bench. Accordingly, such leave was granted by us. According to Mr. Samanta, Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners/appellants submitted that the said affidavit will govern all the points pending before this Court. On such prayer being granted by us affidavit has been filed by one Subhas Chandra Dasgupta on 13th December, 2007. Before the said matter was taken up by us, since all the matters were specially assigned before us by the Honble Chief Justice, an application was filed by the said Subhas Chandra Dasgupta praying for release of all the said matters in question relating to eviction under the provisions of the Act of 1984. On the ground that one matter came up before one of us, Pinaki Chandra Ghose, the question was decided in the said matter which is being APOT No. 251 of 2000 (Sunilangshu Das vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.). Since the said order was passed by one of us, we have already released the said appeal from our Cause List and we intend to take up all the matters since it was specially assigned before us and furthermore we feel that for the said reason and/or the ground, the Court should not release any matter from the Cause List. Hence, we dismiss the said application which was filed before us for release of the matters by the said Subhas Chandra Dasgupta being GA No. 2843 of 2007. The affidavit so filed by the said Subhas Chandra Dasgupta, was affirmed by him and we dealt with all the questions tried to be raised before us on behalf of the writ petitioners as well as the appellants. Mr. The affidavit so filed by the said Subhas Chandra Dasgupta, was affirmed by him and we dealt with all the questions tried to be raised before us on behalf of the writ petitioners as well as the appellants. Mr. Samanta further submitted that the facts of the case are identical save and except the writ petitioners/appellants are occupying their flats in different places and the flat occupiers are different. He submitted that they are covered by the arguments to be put forwarded by him. The facts of the case briefly are as follows: The writ petitioners/appellants were allotted flats constructed under the Rental Housing Scheme of the State Government and came into occupation of the flats in accordance with the terms and conditions as envisaged in their letters of allotment as contained in the reverse of such allotment. The said allotment letters were issued to different occupants from time to time containing certain clauses relating to termination of the tenancy of the flat. Accordingly, Mr. Samanta submitted that the initial clause contained death/transfer/deputation to other authorities/termination of service under the State Government as reasons for such termination of tenancy, but subsequently retirement from service was included as a further reason for such termination. Therefore, even the case of allotment of different petitioners of such flats there was admittedly different types of reasons for determination of the tenancy. According to him, at that point of time, there was no statutory regulation regulating such occupancy of the flats. The precondition for such allotment were that the allottee should not possess either in his own name or in the name of his family any residential accommodation in West Bengal. Such allotment was made on the basis of the application to be filed by the applicant before the Housing Department, Government of West Bengal and after scrutinising the said application allotment letters were issued to the applicant. The further fact which has been stated in the affidavit that the said flats in the different Rental Housing Estates under the Rental Housing Scheme were used for providing welfare to the members of public with reference to displaced person due to partition of Bengal. Mr. Samanta further pointed out that the flats were constructed at some place in and around Kolkata and it was the desire of the then Chief Minister of West Bengal, Mr. Mr. Samanta further pointed out that the flats were constructed at some place in and around Kolkata and it was the desire of the then Chief Minister of West Bengal, Mr. B.C. Roy that some of those flats should be allotted to the State Government employees so that it was not necessary for them to compete with the members of the common public for whom the remaining part of the said L.I.G./M.I.G. flats were to be allotted. Mr. Samanta further stressed on the point that these flats are under the Rental Housing Scheme, which would be evident from the allotment letters. He further pointed out that it cannot be said that the said flats are “official residence, as tried to be made out by the State Government in their affidavit-in-opposition to the supplementary affidavit filed by the said Subhas Chandra Dasgupta”. He further pointed out that such submission is without any basis. Hence, he submitted that the notices of eviction are bad and being incurably bad void ab initio. He further submitted that the first piece of legislation to regulate such occupants was the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976 [hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1976]. Section 2a of the Act of 1976 defines “government premises” and according to him, such definition does not include the “official residence” of any person. He further submitted that the said Act of 1984 the piece of legislation for the purpose of curving out a portion of the allottees of the Act of 1976, who were State Government employees and in their case, the tenancy was sought to be altered to “licence”. The Act of 1984 however, contained relaxation clause being Section 27 therein which allowed the State Government to relax the provisions of the said Act in respect of any government premises to such extent and subject to such conditions as it would be deemed fit. In the said Act, section 24(1) contained a non-obstante clause and Section 24(2) ousted the jurisdiction of the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962 which would have had application. In the said Act, section 24(1) contained a non-obstante clause and Section 24(2) ousted the jurisdiction of the West Bengal Public Land (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1962 which would have had application. According to him, then came the amendment of 1992, with retrospective effect to the West Bengal Apartment Ownership Act, 1972 and he submitted that the said amendment of 1992 in question restored possession of those allottees who have been brought under the purview of the Act of 1984 to their earlier possession as envisaged under the Act of 1976. He further humbly submitted that by virtue of the new amendment of 1992 the Act of 1984 stood “deemed repealed” and in that view of the matter the licencees under the Act of 1984 were restored to their original status of “tenants”. Thereafter, they became entitled to conferment of ownership rights of government flats in the Rental Housing Scheme as was being considered in the case of L.I.G./M.I.G. flats under the Rental Housing Scheme. He further submitted that the filing of writ petition/appeal arises for the reason that the notice of eviction under the Act of 1984 was issued and further there is a discrimination between the flat occupiers and the writ petitioners/appellants whereas the L.I.G./M.I.G. flat occupiers were being sought to be conferred ownership under the Act of 1972 as amended in 1992 amendment, the writ petitioners/appellants were being sought to be thrown out from their flats although there had been restoration of their status as “tenants” by virtue of the said amendment of 1992. Section 4 of the said Act makes the flats “heritable” and “transferable” which means that a tenant of such a flat is entitled to continue in perpetuity. Hence, he challenged the action of the State Government for such discrimination. He further submitted that since the writ petitioners/appellants at one point of time was a State Government employee, they are not getting the chance to enjoy flat as "tenant” at their old age after serving the State Government for the better part of their life. According to him, in view of the financial constraints of the State Government, the State Government is offering to the tenants to buy up the said flats and further taking steps to enhance the rent of the flats in different Housing Estates. According to him, in view of the financial constraints of the State Government, the State Government is offering to the tenants to buy up the said flats and further taking steps to enhance the rent of the flats in different Housing Estates. He further pointed out that the uniform policy of leasing out on reasonable rent seems to be the realistic, equitable and mutually acceptable course. The writ petitioners/appellants will also be affected if such steps are being taken by the State Government. The rights vested to the allottes under their letter of allotment and further conferred under the 1976 Act could not be a breach by a subsequent Act of 1984 used against them when the said Act is “deemed repealed” in view of the subsequent Act of 1972 as amended in 1992. On the contrary, Mr. Ganguly, Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State authorities submitted that the writ petitioners/appellants are retired employees and no deductions fund have been made or could have been made by the State from them if the petitioners/appellants continue with the possession they continue at their own risk and furthermore, the writ petitioners/appellants deposited the amounts voluntarily without any approval from any competent authority and cannot have the benefit out of that. It is further submitted that the flats are required by the Government for accommodating the present government employees and unless the petitioners vacate the flats occupied by them, the present government employees would suffer. He further drew our attention to an unreported decision of this Court being T. No. 1164 of 1999; GA No. 3409 of 1999; APOT No. 631 of 1999 and WP No. 908 of 1999 (Nisit Kumar Mukherjee vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) and raised the question that whether by Act of 1984 it was repealed by virtue of the promulgation of Act of 1972 and the amendment thereafter in the year 1992 as already been decided by the Court which came to the conclusion. In the said decision the Honble Division Bench dealt with all these questions which sought to be raised by the writ petitioners/appellants before this Bench and it would be evident from the said decision which was delivered on 2nd August, 1999 by the Honble Bench presided over by Their Lordships Justice S. B. Sinha and Justice M.H.S. Ansari and the facts are identical in the matter. He further pointed out that a review petition filed in this connection has already been dismissed. It further appears that in the said decision the notice of eviction was challenged on the ground that certain occupants have been allowed to retain their respective flats, even after their retirement and that the flat under the occupation of the petitioner is governed by the Government Rental Housing Scheme by the State Government, the petitioner/appellant has been discriminated against by issue of the notice of eviction. The 1984 Act was impliedly repealed with the enactment of the West Bengal Apartment Ownership (Amendment) Act, 1992 and it was urged that after the enactment of Amendment Act, 1992, amending the provisions of the Act of 1972, the State Government had taken a decision to give ownership of all flats under its control to the tenant and the occupiers and as a consequence, the petitioner had also acquired a similar right in the flat under his occupation. On those grounds, a notice which was served on 30th March, 1998, was liable to be quashed with a direction upon the State to transfer the said flat to the petitioner and he submitted that the defence which was set up by the State authorities, same defence has been put forwarded by the State and heard by the writ petitioners/appellants and they had not been inducted as a tenant in question but as a licencee and was, therefore, governed by the provisions of the Act of 1984 and the ground of discrimination as alleged was denied. After considering the said facts and the materials on record, the Honble Division Bench held that the Act of 1972 is a general statute and is not a special statute. The Act of 1984 which laying down the procedure regarding induction of its employees by the State by granting a licence held valid till the relation of employer-employee continues and further the Honble Division Bench held that the writ petitioners/appellants herein admittedly reached the age of superannuation and hence, is no longer an employee of the State in terms of provisions of the Act of 1984 and is liable to be evicted. The Honble Division Bench also dealt with all the points which have been urged before this Bench on behalf of the writ petitioners/appellants and further he drew our attention to the said decision wherefrom it would be proper for us to reproduce the same as follows: “The Petitioner-Appellant had retired on 31st December, 1997 whereafter he had been served with a notice of eviction under the West Bengal Government Premises (Regulation of Occupancy) Act, 1984 on 30th March, 1998. The West Bengal Apartment Ownership Act is a general statute whereas; West Bengal Premises (Regulation of Occupancy) Act 1984 is a Special Statute. The vires of the provision of the said Act was questioned in Gyan Singh –vs- State of West Bengal reported in 1985(2) CHN 40 , but the same has been upheld. The 1984 Act lays down a detailed procedure as to how a licencee whose licence has been terminated or who has disentitled himself from occupying the said premises should be evicted. Once an order of eviction is passed, there exists a provision for an appeal there against. Section 8 of the said Act reads thus:- “No person in occupation of any Government premises on the appointed day shall remain in occupation thereof if he is not in the employment of, or does not h old any specified post under, the State Government, or is not the person to whom lawful authority had been granted for the occupation of such premises. Explanation:- For the removal of doubts it is declared that any person who has retired from the service of the State Government or from any of the All India Services shall not be deemed to be in the employment of, or to hold any post under the State Government.” Section 10 provides for the terms and conditions of license. Section 11 provides for termination of licence. Section 14 provides for a penal provision. Section 15 and 16 provides for the payment of compensation for unlawful occupation. Provisions have also been made for recovery of such amount of compensation. Schedule 1 appended to the said Act which has been prescribed in terms of Section 10 thereof provides for the terms and conditions applicable to all licensees in respect of the Government Premises. The writ petitioner had entered into such premises in terms of the condition of licenses as contained in Schedule – I of the said Act. Schedule 1 appended to the said Act which has been prescribed in terms of Section 10 thereof provides for the terms and conditions applicable to all licensees in respect of the Government Premises. The writ petitioner had entered into such premises in terms of the condition of licenses as contained in Schedule – I of the said Act. The said flat in question is a Government Premises within the meaning of the provision of the said Act is neither in doubt nor in dispute. Thus, only because in respect of some other premises the State had taken a policy decision to sell the flats to the occupier/tenants thereof, the same by itself does not mean that the petitioner who is differently situated would be entitled to the benefit such a policy. Admittedly, no declaration as mentioned in Section 10 of the Act, 1972 as amended by Act, 1992 was made by the State Government in respect of the building and flats, one of which is under the occupation of the Appellant/Petitioner, so as to submit the .....to the provisions of the West Bengal Apartment Ownership Act, the said Act can have no application to the premises in question. Article 14 of the Constitution of India in the instant case cannot be said to have any application whatsoever keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is governed by the terms and conditions of the licenses which in turn are provided under an Act which a special statute. That apart the discrimination on the ground alleged by the petitioner were held to be factually incorrect.” After perusing the said judgment and/or order of the Honble Division Bench, we express the same view as expressed by Their Lordships. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeals and the writ petitions which are assigned before us are hereby dismissed, since all the facts are identical. However, there will be no order as to costs.