Judgment :- Soumen Sen, J. The instant revisional application is arising out of an order passed by the 11th Bench of City Civil Court at Calcutta in a proceeding initiated under Section 8 of the Murshidabad Estate (Management of Properties) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act, 1980”). The petitioner claims to be a tenant inducted in respect of 2 rooms at the Ground Floor, Premises No.85, Park Street (hereinafter referred to as the “said premises”) by one Fatyeab Ali Meerza, claiming to be a descendant of Nawab of Murshidabad. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice under Section 8(1) of the said Act on 28th April, 2007 on the ground that he is an unauthorized occupant. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice contending that the said Act is ultra vires and the issue relating to vires of the said Act, 1980 is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The said Act was constitutionally invalid and, accordingly, in exercise of any power on the basis of such invalid statute is void and not enforceable. It was also contended that the petitioner is a bona fide tenant in respect of the said portion of the said premises under the Murshidabad Estate since 1977 under a valid contract of tenancy subsisting prior to the appointed day of the said Act, 1980. The petitioner challenged the exercise of power by the said authority under Section 8 of the said Act. Upon consideration of such objection, an order was passed on 8th February, 2008. It was held that the High Court proceeding on which reliance was placed by the petitioner resulted in a dismissal. It was held by the Division Bench that the said appeal was found to have abated with the death of Syed Fatyeab Ali Meerza (Mohammad Abbas Ali Meerza Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2006(3) CHN 407 ). Apart from the aforesaid, it was held that by reason of enactment of the said Act, 1980 properties belonging to the Murshidabad Estate stood transferred to and vested in the State of West Bengal in terms of Section 3 of the said Act and the possession of the schedule property has been taken over by the State Government. Apart from the aforesaid, it was held that by reason of enactment of the said Act, 1980 properties belonging to the Murshidabad Estate stood transferred to and vested in the State of West Bengal in terms of Section 3 of the said Act and the possession of the schedule property has been taken over by the State Government. The said Act has not been declared unconstitutional by the Hon’ble High Court and there is no stay order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in connection with the Special Leave Petition filed by Mohammed Abbas Ali Meerza after having lost before the Division Bench on 30th June, 2006. The Estate Manager further held that even if it is presumed that any contract of tenancy was entered into with the petitioner by anyone of the descendants of the said Nawab, other than the Estate Manager, Murshidabad Estate, the same is void and not a valid contract. Accordingly, the petitioner is not a bona fide and authorized tenant or occupant and he is liable to be evicted from the schedule property. The said order has been the subject-matter of challenge before the 11th Bench of City Civil Court in Misc. Appeal No.12 of 2008. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the said property was not taken over before 1980 and as such Fatyeab Ali Meerza had a right to create tenancy in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner was inducted in 1977 and has been paying rent. The respondent authorities were misusing their power and harassed Fatyeab Ali Meerza in all possible ways including non-payment of annuity and other dues. It was contended that in terms of the Sanad of 1861 Fatyeab Ali Meerza had the right to create such tenancy. Even under the Act of 1963, the heirs and legal descendants of the Nawab was given the right to use and occupy the residential houses and buildings of the late Nawab and this clearly implies that the said Fatyeab Ali Meerza had the right to create such tenancy, since such right is incidental to right to use and occupy such building. Per contra, Mr. Sakya Sen led by Mr. Per contra, Mr. Sakya Sen led by Mr. Ashok Banerjee, the learned Government Pleader submitted that consequent upon the enactment of the Murshidabad Estate (Trust) Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act, 1963”) all properties of the said Nawab vested on and from the appointed day upon the official trustee for West Bengal and the said trustee alone can create tenancy and other rights and entitled to receive and recover rents, issues and profits due in respect of the properties of the estate. The said aforesaid Act of 1963 was replaced by the Murshidabad Estate (Management of Properties) & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1980. The said Act was enacted for better administration of the Murshidabad Estate (Trust) and to accommodate the expenditure on account of management and administration. Such legislation was passed by repealing all the previous acts on the subject as mentioned in Section 16 of the said Act, 1980. In the said Act, 1980 official trustee was replaced by Estate Manager and similar to Section 3 of the 1963 Act, Section 3 of the 1980 Act on and from the appointed day all properties transferred to or vested in the State Government. All valid contracts subsisting immediately before the appointed day in relation to any of the estate properties had been protected. Section 10 of the said Act of 1980 is a departure from the absolute right given under Section 6 of the earlier Act of 1963 since by reason of the said section, the surviving sons and daughters of the late Nawab could claim alternative accommodation only for bona fide residential purposes. The rights and privileges of the surviving heirs of the Nawab were considerably curtailed. The learned Counsels for the parties relied upon the Division Bench judgment reported in 2006(3) CHN 407 and the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court preferred by Sayed Fateyab Ali Meerza in connection with the said estate. The rights and privileges of the surviving heirs of the Nawab were considerably curtailed. The learned Counsels for the parties relied upon the Division Bench judgment reported in 2006(3) CHN 407 and the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court preferred by Sayed Fateyab Ali Meerza in connection with the said estate. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1680 of 1994 considered the entitlement of Sayed Fatyeab Ali Meerza both under the 1963 Act and 1980 Act and held as follows:- “It is submitted by Shri Tapas C. Ray, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondent that pursuant to the decision of the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court in C.R. No.10165 of 1981 the Central Government in 1989 has decided that Syed Fatyeab Ali Meerza cannot succeed to the title as the Nawab of Murshidabad after the death of third Nawab. We need not go into the aspect because, as we have already noted under the 1963 Act, apart from monthly remuneration which Syed Fateyab Ali Meerza was entitled to receive from the Trust Properties he had a right to stay in the property known as Amir Mahal in Murshidabad though Syed Fateyab Ali Meerza claimed a right to reside in the other property including at No.85, Park Street, Calcutta. Under the 1980 Act, which was sated to be challenged in the present proceedings his right remain in occupation of Amir Mahal and the allowance he was to get under the 1983 Act has come to an end. We are not sure, in the absence of the Writ Petition before us, whether there was any challenge to the 1963 Act in the Writ petition but it is not disputed that the Writ Petition certainly questioned the validity of the 1980 Act. In as much as the 1980 Act affected the benefits which Syed Fateyab Ali Meerza was entitled to under the 1963 Act, he certainly had the locus standi to file the Writ Petition. The decision of the Calcutta High Court to the contrary in this regard is fallacious. The Division Bench Judgment arose in view of the fact that the said respondent was not recognizing Syed Fatyeab Ali Meerza as Nawab Bahadur & also not paying a sum of Rs.2 lakh 30 thousand annually to him. There were some proceedings between the said Nawab and the State. Thereafter the Nawab died on 3rd January, 1998. The Division Bench Judgment arose in view of the fact that the said respondent was not recognizing Syed Fatyeab Ali Meerza as Nawab Bahadur & also not paying a sum of Rs.2 lakh 30 thousand annually to him. There were some proceedings between the said Nawab and the State. Thereafter the Nawab died on 3rd January, 1998. Two applications were filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by two persons claiming independently as legal heir & representative of the said Syed Fatyeab Ali Meerza. The Hon’ble Supreme Court brought both the persons on record as legal representative for the purposes of the appeal only since their interest is not in conflict as both of them contended that Syed Fatyeab Ali Meerza had the locus to file the writ petitions. In disposing of the said Special Leave Petition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made the aforesaid observations. Upon remand the Hon’ble Division Bench held that: “none of them could claim as a legal representative of the deceased writ petitioner in terms of the custom of inheritance by primogeniture by which the Nawab family was guided. The appeal by the writ petitioner stood dismissed as abated.” However, there is nothing on record to show that the said Act, 1963 or 1980 has been declared ultra vires by any court of law. The said decisions and judgments are not relevant in considering the instant application. It appears that by reason of the 1963 Act, the said Nawab could not have created a tenancy in 1977 in favour of the present petitioner. Moreover, by reason of the 1980 Act, all properties stand transferred to & vested in the State Government. Under both the Acts even if it is held that Fatyeab Ali Meerza could claim himself to be a lineal descendant of the Nawab and was entitled to some benefit in his own right under the 1963 Act and/or 1980 Act he could not have created a tenancy in favour of the petitioner in view of Section 3 of the 1963 Act and similar restrictions are there in Section 3 of 1980 Act. The perceptible change in the 1980 Act is that under sub-section (2) of Section 3 with the transfer of such properties in favour of the State Government, the said authorities could take such steps as it considered necessary for securing the possession thereof. The perceptible change in the 1980 Act is that under sub-section (2) of Section 3 with the transfer of such properties in favour of the State Government, the said authorities could take such steps as it considered necessary for securing the possession thereof. The learned Trial Judge upon consideration of such materials held that the said tenancy is invalid and this Court agrees with the said finding. In fact, the present petitioner under the garb of this application wanted to raise the issues which were initially appeared to have been raised by Syed Fatyeab Ali Meerza & subsequently by two persons claiming to be legal representative. In view thereof, the revisional application fails, there shall be no order as to costs.