JUDGMENT Ishan Chandra Das, J. This writ petition being WPLRT No.1309 of 2002 is directed against a common order passed by the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal on 2nd October, 2002 disposing of three original applications being O.A No.857 of 2001 (LRTT), O.A No.1244 of 2001(LRTT) and O.A No.1032 of 2002 (LRTT). Another writ petition being WPLRT No.1323 of 2002 was also filed by another set of petitioners challenging the said order of the Tribunal. Another writ petition being W.P No.1318 of 2002 has also been filed by separate set of writ petitioners challenging the said order of tribunal. The writ petitions being WPLRT No.1323 of 2002 and WPLRT 1309 of 2002 are ready for hearing. The other writ petition being WPLRT 1318 of 2002 is not ready for hearing as an interlocutory application filed in connection therewith being CAN No.2275 of 2014 still remains undisposed of. As such we have taken up for hearing, only two writ petitions being WPLRT No.1323 of 2002 and WPLRT 1309 of 2002. Let us now consider the merit of those two writ petitions. Admittedly, American Baptist Foreign Mission was a non-agricultural tenant under the State in respect of various plots of land under Khatian No.20, J.L No.168, Revenue Survey No. 6868, Touzi No.2939 in the District of Midnapore. Finally published record of rights appearing at page 70 of the paper book shows that rent (Khajna) was assessed by the State respondent under West Bengal Non-Agricultural Land Assessment Act, 1936 for a period of 30 years commencing from 1st April, 1945 till 31st March, 1975. The non-agricultural tenant paid such rent to the State at the rate as assessed by the State Government under the said Act. The Additional District Magistrate and the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Midnapore by his letter dated 22nd August, 1996 informed the petitioner, namely, the transferee from the said non-agricultural tenant that his occupation in the said land in question was unauthorized as he was possessing the said land without taking renewal of the lease from the competent authority and/or without obtaining any permission and/or long term settlement from the Collector. By the said notice, the said transferee was called upon to approach the concerned authority for renewal of the said lease, failing which, steps will be taken against him as per law. By the said notice, the said transferee was called upon to approach the concerned authority for renewal of the said lease, failing which, steps will be taken against him as per law. Subsequently, a notification was also issued by the Collector, Midnapore on 4th January, 2002 with an identical request. The said notice and the notification as aforesaid were under challenge in the Tribunal application before the West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal. The Learned Tribunal ultimately disposed of the Tribunal application by directing the District Land and Land Reforms Officer, West Midnapore to conclude the said proceeding as early as possible by giving fresh notice of hearing to the concerned parties and by giving them individual hearing and to decide those proceedings according to their merit and legal position in the light of the observations made in the said judgment for regularization of the settlement. The legality of the said judgment and/or order of the Learned Tribunal is under challenge before us. Let us now consider the merit of the writ petition in the facts as stated above. Admittedly, the American Baptist Foreign Mission was a non-agricultural tenant under the State. Rent was realized from such non-agricultural tenant as per rent assessed under 1936 Act. Such non-agricultural tenant transferred its tenancy to different transferees including the writ petitioners herein. They are still in possession of the land in question. A question has cropped up as to whether such a non-agricultural tenant was required to get its tenancy renewed on payment of selami as proposed by the Collector, Midnapore in the notice and/or notification as referred to above or in other words, does the tenancy of the said non-agricultural tenant continue even without renewal of its tenancy after 31st March, 1975. Let us examine this issue hereunder. The West Bengal Non-Agricultural Land Assessment Act 1936 was repealed by Section 91 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949. Since the said act of 1936 was repealed, rent cannot be reassessed under the provision of the repealed Act. With the enactment of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949, the tenancy of the non-agricultural tenant started to be governed by the said Act. Section 7 of the said Act deals with incidents of such non-agricultural tenancies which is as follows:- “7. With the enactment of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949, the tenancy of the non-agricultural tenant started to be governed by the said Act. Section 7 of the said Act deals with incidents of such non-agricultural tenancies which is as follows:- “7. Incidents of certain tenancies—Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any contract— (1) If any non-agricultural land has been held with or without any lease having been entered into by the landlord and the tenant from before the commencement of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (IV of 1882), or if the origin of any tenancy is unknown. (2) If the non-agricultural land comprised in any tenancy which has been or is created after the commencement of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, has been held for a term of not less than twelve years without any lease in writing. (3) If any non-agricultural land has been held for a term of not less than twelve years under a lease in writing but no term is specified in such lease. (4) If any non-agricultural land held under a lease in writing for a period specified therein continues to be held with the express or implied consent of the landlord after the expiration of the time limited by such lease and the total period for which such land is so held is less than twelve years. (5) If the landlord has allowed pucca structures to be erected on any non-agricultural land held under a lease in writing for a period specified therein, whether such structures have been erected –– (a) Before the expiration of the said period. (b) Where such non-agricultural land continues to be held with the express or implied consent of the landlord after the expiration of the said period, during the period such non-agricultural land so continues to be held, then— (i) The tenant holding the non-agricultural land comprised in such tenancy shall not be ejected by his landlord from such land except on the ground that he has used such land in a manner which renders it unfit for use for the purposes of the tenancy. (ii) The interest of the tenant in the non agricultural land comprised in such tenancy shall, in the case where such tenant dies intestate in respect of such interest, be transmitted by inheritance in the same manner as his other immovable property: Provided that in any case in which under the law of inheritance to which such tenant is subject, his other property goes to the [Government], his interest in such land shall be extinguished. (iii) The non-agricultural land comprised in such tenancy or a share or a portion thereof together with the interest of the tenant therein shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be capable of being transferred and bequeathed in the same manner, and to the same extent as his other immovable property.” Here is the case where we find the American Baptist Foreign Mission held its tenancy under the State without any lease since before the commencement of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 as we find that a deed of transfer was executed by the said non-agricultural tenant sometime in 1870 appearing at page 66 of the paper book. Nothing has been produced upon us to show that a tenancy was created by the State in favour of the said non-agricultural tenant by a lease deed executed between the parties. Section 7 of the said Act provides that the tenancy of such non-agricultural tenant can be created either by a written lease or otherwise and even without any lease deed and such tenancy is heritable and transferable but subject to eviction on the ground as mentioned in Section 7 (5)(i). We have already mentioned above that such a nonagricultural tenant transferred its interest in the land in question to various transferees including the writ petitioners herein. As such the State respondent cannot refuse to recognize the tenancy of the subsequent transferees of such a non-agricultural tenant. In fact, such tenancy of the transferees was accepted by the State which recognized their tenancies by recording their names as raiyats in the finally published record of rights. Fact remains that they are still in possession. As such their tenancy remains unaffected. Since tenancy of such non-agricultural tenant was not created by the State respondent by written lease, renewal of the lease as contemplated under Section 7 is not necessary in the present case. Fact remains that they are still in possession. As such their tenancy remains unaffected. Since tenancy of such non-agricultural tenant was not created by the State respondent by written lease, renewal of the lease as contemplated under Section 7 is not necessary in the present case. Thus, the tenancy of the nonagricultural tenant and/or its transferees continues and for continuation of such tenancy, renewal of tenancy by written lease is not necessary. However, rent payable by such tenant, can be enhanced in view of the provision contained in Section 11 of the West Bengal non-agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949 and such enhanced rent can be realized from the non-agricultural tenant till such non-agricultural tenancy continued under the State respondent. The Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act was repealed on 09.09. 1980 and in view of Section 3 A of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955, such tenancy of the non-agricultural tenant started to be governed by the provisions of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. As such after the West Bengal nonagricultural tenancy Act, 1949 was repealed, the non-agricultural tenant and/or its transferees became the raiyat directly under the State and their tenants will be governed by the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. We thus, dispose of the writ petition by holding, inter alia, that renewal of the lease as suggested in the impugned notice and/or the notification for continuation of the tenancy is not necessary. However, the State respondent may realize the enhanced rent from the petitioner by following the observation made hereinabove. The impugned notice and the notification which were under challenge in the Tribunal Application stand quashed so far as these two writ petitions are concerned. It is however, made clear that while deciding these writ petitions, we have not considered the legality of the transfer of the land in question by the original non-agricultural tenant in favour of his transferees, as such a question is not an issue before us. The impugned order, thus, stands set aside so far as these two writ petitions being WPLRT 1323 of 2002 and WPLRT 1309 of 2002 are concerned. Since we have not considered the merit of the other writ petition being WPLRT 1318 of 2002 is concerned, the fate of the said writ petition will not be governed by this order. The writ petitions are, thus, disposed of.