Judgment : Asim Kumar Mondal, J. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 18th April, 2012 passed by learned Judge 13th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Misc. Appeal No. 67 of 2006. The appellant is a tenant in respect of the suite no. 25, 5th Floor of Premises 13, Ganesh Chandra Avenue, Kolkata at a monthly rental of Rs. 75/- per month payable according to the English Calendar month. The respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India, Eastern Zone, Hindustan Building served a notice to quit dated February 19, 1993 the allegation that appellant failed and neglected to pay rent since August, 1991. The Estate Officer served notice upon the appellant to show cause. The appellant replied to the show cause denying the allegations of default. Upon the pleadings of the parties the Estate Officer framed issues and after hearing both sides and examining documents passed order on November 30, 1995 asking the appellant to vacate the premises in question within 15 days from the date of publication of the order and it was further ordered that in the event of failure to comply the said order within specified period the person in possession of the suit property will be vacated. The appellant preferred appeal against the said order dated November 30, 1995 before learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Calcutta which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 33 of 1995. The learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court disposed of the said appeal by an order dated April 29, 2000. The appellant being aggrieved by the said judgment and order preferred a revisional application being C.O. No. 1522 of 2000 before this High Court. The High Court on March 22, 2004 was pleased to remit back the case before the Estate Officer that order of the Estate Officer for eviction of the present petitioner should be kept in abeyance till the determination of the issue relating to non-payment along with interest / damages as determined by the Estate Officer on hearing both the sides. The High Court on March 22, 2004 was pleased to remit back the case before the Estate Officer that order of the Estate Officer for eviction of the present petitioner should be kept in abeyance till the determination of the issue relating to non-payment along with interest / damages as determined by the Estate Officer on hearing both the sides. Accordingly the revisional application was allowed and was remitted back to the Estate Officer for hearing both sides and to determine the quantum of rent payable by the petitioner along with interest / damages and Estate Officer was further directed to fix up the date for payment of the amount due in favour of the opposite party and in case of default on such payment the order of the Estate Officer shall come into force. The Estate Officer passed an order on July 25, 2006 held that the appellant is liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month instead of Rs. 75/- per month with effect from August, 1991 to March, 1993 and also held the appellant is payable to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from April, 1993 to 31st July, 2006 and also imposed simple interest at the rate of 4.5% per annum. Finally, the Estate Officer directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 1,01,519.00 in two instalments and on compelling circumstances the petitioner paid the said amount to the respondent. The appellant challenged the said order passed by Estate Officer dated July 24, 2006 before the City Civil Court, Calcutta which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 67 of 2006. The appeal filed by the petitioner came up for hearing before the learned 13th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta. Learned Judge, City Civil Court, 13th Bench, Calcutta dismissed the Misc. Appeal by order dated April 18th, 2012. Appeal No. 67 of 2006. The appeal filed by the petitioner came up for hearing before the learned 13th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta. Learned Judge, City Civil Court, 13th Bench, Calcutta dismissed the Misc. Appeal by order dated April 18th, 2012. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order the petitioner has preferred the present revisional application on the grounds that the Estate Officer acted illegally and with material irregularity by not considering the fact that in C.O. No. 1522 of 2000 the Hon’ble High Court did not direct the Estate Officer to fix up the rent by making enhancement of the existing rate of rent and further that learned Lower Appellate Court illegally dismissed the appeal without considering, that rent was not enhanced by following the procedure and by complying rules and by taking into consideration the relevant law that are applicable in case of fixation of rent. The following reported case laws of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as Hon’ble High Courts were referred by the learned counsels for the parties in respect of their respective submissions and arguments : - 2011 (3) CHN (SC) 122 2011 (3) CHN (SC) 121 2003 (3) CLJ at page 172 Indian Civil Cases 2012 (1) Supreme Court at Page 398 1994 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 694 1994 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 696 1999 (2) CLJ 457 2003 (2) CLJ Page 172 Mr. Shyamal Chakraborty with Mr. B.K. Jain appeared for the petitioner. It is submitted and argued by Mr. Chakraborty that the order of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta in connection with Misc. Appeal No. No. 33 of 1995 brought into notice that the petitioner is depositing rent the office of the Rent Controller, Calcutta in terms of the order dated December 18th, 1995 which has not been declared by any court of law that the fact depositing the rent of the petitioner in the office of the rent controller, Calcutta is unlawful or illegal. It is further submitted that Estate Officer failed to appreciate the direction by the Hon’ble Court and also failed to appreciate the spirit of the order of Hon’ble High Court. It is further submitted that Estate Officer failed to appreciate the direction by the Hon’ble Court and also failed to appreciate the spirit of the order of Hon’ble High Court. The landlord being Life Insurance Corporation of India did not pray for any enhancement of rent neither there was any pleading to that effect nor the present petitioner was faced with any such question as to whether he is to pay enhanced rate of rent but the Estate Officer out of his own without giving any slightest hint to any of the parties observed that a proposal for rent at the rate of Rs. 500/-per month was proposed to the opposite party and the opposite party vide their letter dated 16th November, 1993 agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 500/-per month with effect from April 1st, 1993. No issue was framed as to whether the petitioner is liable to pay rent at a higher rate of rent than the petitioner ever paid. The direction of the Estate Officer is in violation of order passed by the learned High Court and as such the order is improper, irregular and is liable to be set aside. Mr. Chakraborty further argued and submitted that when there is no specific provision nor the Public Premises Act regarding any issue, the provisions applicable to the said Act will be followed. In that context the West Bengal premises Tenancy Act being the said Act wherein tenant may deposit rent in the office of the Rent Controller to avoid default is acceptable. Learned Judge, 13th Bench, City Civil Court illegal declared that the rent was deposited by the petitioner before the office of the Rent Controller are invalid and the alleged ground that the petitioner is an unauthorised occupier of a Public Premises and he cannot invoke the protection of the Rent Controller Act. Mr. Chakraborty further submitted that the quantum of rent taken into consideration the rent deposited by the petitioner in the office of Rent Controller, Calcutta and also on taking into consideration the rate of rent at which the petitioner lastly paid rent before initiation of the eviction proceeding and on taking into consideration the amount due may be calculated and said amount may be adjusted against the amount is already paid by the petitioner and rest of the amount may be directed to be adjusted in the future rent. The Estate Officer may also be directed not to impose any interest upon the petitioner for the period when rent has been deposited by the petitioner in the office of the Rent Controller. Mr. Dilip Kumar Kundu with Mr. Arjun Basu appears on behalf of the opposite party. Mr. Kundu submits that in Misc. Appeal No. 67 of 2006 affidavit in opposition on behalf of the respondent was filed. It is submitted that the appellant is an unauthorised occupant and has filed the appeal before the learned First Appellate Court to obtain some reliefs which he is not entitled to get and it is also submitted that the circular issued by the Ministry of Urban Development dated May 13th, 2002 with reference to paragraph Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of the petition filed by the present appellant is not binding upon the respondent Life Insurance Corporation of India. Mr. Kundu further submits that it is not correct that Estate Officer arrived at a decision by making payment at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month without any basis. Mr. Kundu supported the rate of interest imposed upon the petitioner and finally submits that it will appear from the impugned order that is the order passed by the Estate Officer that the appellant vide their letter dated November 16th, 1993 was agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month with effect from April 1st, 1993. The Estate Officer has accordingly determined the quantum of rent payable by the appellant and therefore, there cannot be any ground for challenging the impugned order. I have carefully considered the decisions and case laws referred by the learned Counsels for the parties as mentioned above. I have also carefully considered the order dated July 25th, 2006 passed by Estate Officer in case No. EO/122 of 1993. The Estate Officer in his said judgment has carefully observed and considered the observations of order passed in Misc. Appeal No. 33 of 1995 by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court as well as the order passed by this High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in C.O. NO. 1522 of 2000 and finally passed the order dated July 25th, 2006. In the said judgment the Estate Officer noted the direction of this High Court in C.O. NO. 1522 of 2000 and finally passed the order dated July 25th, 2006. In the said judgment the Estate Officer noted the direction of this High Court in C.O. NO. 1522 of 2000 that the initial order of eviction dated March 22, 2004 passed by the Estate Officer should be kept in abeyance till the issue relating to arrear rent along with interest / damages is determined by the Estate Officer on hearing both sides. The Estate Officer further noted that the determination of quantum arrear rent etc. is to be assessed, keeping in view marked rent in or around the locality and also noted that the Estate Officer has no jurisdiction to determine the current rent nor has been advised by the Hon’ble High Court. The Estate Officer also carefully noted that he was directed to hear both sides and to determine the quantum of rent payable by petitioner along with interest and damages in view of the direction of the High Court it has been held by Estate Officer that he is only to calculate the arrear rent at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month which was being paid by the opposite party before the initiation of the case. The question of hearing of both sides has directed in the judgment of High Court is nothing but to determine the quantum of rent along with interest / damages upon hearing both sides the Estate Officer in his said judgment has observed and held that during the course of hearing from the record it was observed that a proposal for rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month was proposed to the opposite party and opposite party vide their letter dated November 16th 1993 was agreed to pay rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month with effect from April 1st, 1993 as proposed. Mr. Kundu in course of his argument submitted that the letter in question was not challenged in course of hearing before the Estate Officer. The Estate Officer very cautiously held that neither he has the jurisdiction to allow the current rate of rent nor he has been directed by the High Court to determine the same. Accordingly the Estate Officer accepted the rent as agreed upon by the parties and calculated the arrears along with interest. Learned Judge 13th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in disposing of Misc. Accordingly the Estate Officer accepted the rent as agreed upon by the parties and calculated the arrears along with interest. Learned Judge 13th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in disposing of Misc. Appeal No. 67 of 2006 as considered the observations and view of the Estate Office in the light of the direction of the order of the revisional application by this high Court. The concurrent observations of Estate Officer in his judgment dated July 25th, 2006 in case No. EO/122 of 1993 and Misc. Appeal No. 67 of 2006 and learned Judge, 13th Bench, City Civil Court in Misc. Appeal No. 67 of 2006 appears that the rate of rent was taken into consideration on the basis of understanding between the parties relying upon a letter dated November 16th, 1993. Admittedly, the said letter was not challenged. It is also admitted the fact that the petitioner has already complied with the direction of Estate Officer by depositing the calculated arrear rents in two instalments. Learned Judge, 13th Bench, City Civil Court has rightly observed that there is marked departure between the Ordinary Tenancy Act and Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 1971 the High Court remitted back to the matter to the Estate Office for determining the quantum of rent along with interest and damages. Accordingly the Estate Officer heard both sides and determined the arrear rents with interest at the rate of rent as agreed upon by the parties. On careful consideration of the order impugned I do not find any reason to interfere into the observations of the said judgment keeping in view with the letter dated November 16th 1993 remained unchallenged. And the question of adjustment of rent allegedly deposited in the Rent Controller office at the rate of Rs. 75/- per month does not arise under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of unauthorised occupants) Act, 1997. In the result the revisional application is liable to be dismissed. The stay order, if any, granted earlier by this Court stands vacated. Thus the revisional application is dismissed without cost and the judgment and order passed by learned Judge, 11th Bench, City Civil Court, Calcutta in Misc. Appeal No. 67 of 2006 remained uninterfered.