JUDGMENT : Mir Dara Sheko, J. 1. The revisional application is directed against the order dated May 21, 2012 passed by the Estate Officer Kolkata Port Trust in proceeding No. 287 of 1999 (Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata Vs. Shalimar Paints Limited). It is pertinent to mention that the impugned order is passed analogously by the Estate Officer, in the said proceeding No. 287 along with 308 of 1999 against the self-same petitioner, since issue in both the cases is the same. Background of the case bearing some admitted facts are mentioned hereunder:- a. The Estate Officer empowered under Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 issued the notice upon the petitioner with reference to the eviction proceeding No. 287 of 1999 under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, intimating “on and from 1.4.1990 you have lost your authority to occupy the public premises” namely portion of godown space 504.436 sq. metres, situated in Calcutta Jetty Shed No. l as described in the schedule of the said notice. b. The said proceeding was initiated on 18th February, 1999. c. The Estate Officer on March 28, 2000 passed orders of eviction and damages for wrongful occupation with effect from 1st April, 1990. d. Against the order of eviction, the petitioner preferred Miscellaneous Appeal before the appellate authority which was dismissed on merit on June 3, 2002. e. The petitioner then filed writ petition No. 1321 of 2002 challenging the order of said miscellaneous appeal which was dismissed on August 23, 2006 against which the petitioner preferred writ appeal which was dismissed on April 18, 2007. f. Possession of the impugned property was handed over by the petitioner in favour of the opposite party/ respondent on February 1, 2008. 2. The dispute arose when the opposite party, after attainment of finality in the order of eviction upto writ appeal and after taking possession of the premises-in-question, served notice under Section 7 of the Act on February 17, 2009 claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 38,04,942/-assessing damages for the period from 31.3.2000 to 31.1.2008. 3. The petitioner moved this Court with writ petition being C.O. 2048 of 2009 for setting aside the said notice under Section 7 of Public Premises (Eviction and Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 in connection with the Eviction Proceeding No. 287 of 1999, and for other reliefs. 4. 38,04,942/-assessing damages for the period from 31.3.2000 to 31.1.2008. 3. The petitioner moved this Court with writ petition being C.O. 2048 of 2009 for setting aside the said notice under Section 7 of Public Premises (Eviction and Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 in connection with the Eviction Proceeding No. 287 of 1999, and for other reliefs. 4. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner being also unauthorized occupant of another additional godown space measuring 288.28 Sq. metres in Calcutta Jetty Shed No.1 under Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata a similar proceeding No.308 of 1999 under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 was initiated against the self-same petitioner fate of which also attained same finality upto writ appeal, and the notice under Section 7 was challenged in another C.O. No. 2122 of 2009. 5. This Court on 29.06.2011 deciding both the C.Os being 2122 and 2048 of 2009 by a single judgment dismissed both the writ petitions on merit with some guidelines and observations, which are mentioned in the Paragraph No. 5. 6. (i) The Order of eviction of the petitioner as unauthorized occupant from the impugned property has attained finality. (ii) After attainment of finality in respect of order of eviction the notice under Section 7(3) of the Act claiming the damages for unauthorized or wrongful occupation of the petitioner in respect of the Public Premises specifying the period therein has been served upon the petitioner. (iii) Point of limitation that is whether the said notice under Section 7(3) of the Act as issued on February 17, 2009 claiming the damages for the period from 01.04.1990 has been kept open. (iv) Since the notice under Section 7(3) of the Act had no number of separate proceeding it was submitted to be not entertain able under law. This Court has given the observation and finding thereby answering to the points raised by the petitioner during hearing of the aforesaid writ petitions, relevant portions of which are set out below:- “Unless a person is found to be in unauthorized occupation, neither the proceeding under Section 7 nor the proceeding under section 4 of the said Act can be initiated. The estate officer while considering the proceeding which ended with an order for eviction passed under section 5 of the said Act, framed as many as eight issues therein and one of the issues is whether the petitioner is liable to pay the damages for their occupation or not. The said issue is duly answered by the estate officer holding that the petitioner is liable to pay damages for wrongful occupation of the property on and from 1.4.1990. The said order was assailed in an appeal under section 9 of the said Act but the appellate Court affirmed the same. The petitioner further questioned the said order in a writ proceeding before this Court but the same was also dismissed. An intra court appeal against the order of dismissal of the writ petition was also rejected. Thus the liability to pay the damages which was crystallised by the order of estate officer stood affirmed in a various proceeding initiated by the petitioner. The petitioner cannot escape from the liability of payment of an amount on account of damages to be calculated from 1.4.1990. Whether the notice has to be issued bearing a new number or issued under the proceeding which is initiated against the petitioner makes no distinction to the liability of the petitioner or entitlement of the claimant in relation to the damages to be assessed and determined under section 7 of the said Act by the estate officer. The petitioner shall be at liberty to take all points including the point of limitation before the estate officer and if such point is taken the estate officer is under obligation to deal with and/or decide the said issue in accordance with law. Even otherwise I do not find that there is any provision in the said Act which provides the recording of a new number and creating an embargo to decide the matter in accordance with the provisions of the said Act in already initiated proceeding. The estate officer has been empowered to assess the damages on account of unauthorized use and occupation of the premises under section 7(2) of the said Act. Thus the estate officer is required to assess the quantum of the damages and not its liability as the same has already been crystallized by the estate officer at the time of passing an order under section 5 of the said Act. Thus the estate officer is required to assess the quantum of the damages and not its liability as the same has already been crystallized by the estate officer at the time of passing an order under section 5 of the said Act. The preliminary order for liability to pay the damages from a specified date has already been passed by the estate officer and thus the assessment of damages cannot said to be independent proceeding so as to register a separate proceeding by the estate officer. What has been challenged by the petitioner in this revisional application is that the notice issued by the estate officer under section 7(2) of the said Act is liable to be quashed, rescinded and set aside as the same has been issued under the disposed of proceeding. There is no order passed under section 7 by the estate officer which can be said to be assailed in an appeal under section 9 of the said Act. As indicated above, on other point I find that there is no merit in the instant revisional application and both the revisional application being C.O. 2122 of 2009 and C.O. 2048 of 2009 are dismissed on merit.” 7. Being so directed by this Court, the Estate Officer passed the impugned order No.62 dated 21.5.2012 holding that since the Estate Officer is not a Civil Court and thereby not governed by Code of Civil Procedure the Limitation Act does not apply, and held as follows:- “I am firm in holding that this Forum of Law is very much within its jurisdiction to serve notice u/s. 7 of the Act for realization of damages from O.P. and the point of maintainability of the proceedings as advocated on behalf of O.P. is hopelessly untenable and hereby rejected. In coming into such conclusion, it is worthy to note that O.P’s occupation has already been declared unauthorized by order u/s.5 of the Act dated 28.03.2000 which was subsequently affirmed/confirmed by the Ld. City Civil Court on appeal and by the Hon’ble Division Bench of Calcutta High Court as well on challenge in respect of proceedings No.287 of 1999 (godown space measuring 504.436 sq.m.- JS-4/B). City Civil Court on appeal and by the Hon’ble Division Bench of Calcutta High Court as well on challenge in respect of proceedings No.287 of 1999 (godown space measuring 504.436 sq.m.- JS-4/B). It is also worthy to point out that this Forum of Law by order No. 30 dated 31.03.2009, elaborately discussed the factual aspect involved with regard to declaration of O.P’s occupation as “unauthorized” in respect of proceedings No. 308 of 1999 (godown space measuring 288.28 sq.m.-JS- 4/C). However, O.P. is directed to file appropriate reply to the Show Cause Notice u/s. 7 of the Act with all the papers/documents in their power of possession to substantiate their case within 15 days from the date of passing of this order for effective adjudication into the matter on the basis of Show Cause Notice u/s.7 of the Act within the four corners of P.P.Act.” 8. It is redundant to say that the proceeding for finalisation of damage and its recovery is yet to complete and the same remained deferred consequent to preferring the instant writ application under Article 227 in which the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause as to why the order dated May 21, 2012 passed the Estate Officer Calcutta Port Trust in proceeding No. 287 of 1999 should not be set aside and for other reliefs as the Court may deem fit and proper. 9. It may be mentioned that on taking leave of the Court a letter dated July12, 2007 allegedly to have been sent on behalf of the petitioner to the Chairman of the Calcutta Port Trust was submitted with affidavit by the respondent for its acceptance, against which affidavit-in-opposition was submitted with a view to discard acceptability of a new document in a proceeding under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. In view of the chequered history of the matter let me decide the instant case on the following issues:- (i) Whether any new document may be taken into account to adjudicate the issue-in-question? (ii) Whether law of limitation will apply in the proceeding under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971? (iii) Whether the notice under Section 7 of the Act bearing the assessed amount of damages covering period of arrears mentioned thereto is barred by any law? 11. Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, assisted by Mr. (ii) Whether law of limitation will apply in the proceeding under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971? (iii) Whether the notice under Section 7 of the Act bearing the assessed amount of damages covering period of arrears mentioned thereto is barred by any law? 11. Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, assisted by Mr. Sarbopriya Mukherjee andRajesh Upadhyay relied on the case of RENA DREGO (MRS) Vs. LANCHAND SONI AND OTHERS reported in (1998)3 SUPREME COURT CASES 341, and BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED Vs. UTKARSH TUBES & PIPES LTD. decided by the division bench of our Court and submitted that any new material which was never produced before or considered by Court below the High Court should not accept any such stranger document in a proceeding like the instant one to disturb the finding of facts in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. 12. Mr. Chowdhury argued that the Estate Officer committed illegality and his findings are out rightly perverse since he held a proceeding under the Act being not tried by a Civil Court, law of limitation would not apply, and, wrongly interpreting the case of the New Delhi Municipal Corporation decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court and due to taking wrong note of the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of L.S. Nair Vs. Hindustan Steel which was overruled, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and he relied upon the following decisions:- (i) New Delhi Municipal Committee Vs. Kalu Ram and Another reported in AIR 1976 SC 1637 . (ii) G.R Gupta Vs. Lok Sabha 2013 SCC Online Del 4832. (iii) Unreported case of M/s. Automobile Association of Eastern India and Ors. Vs. The Board of Trustees of the Port of Kolkata and Ors. in W.P No. 16552 (W) of 2006 decided on 11.06.2006. 13. Learned Advocate for the respondent Mr. Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya in his usual fairness replied that though a new document has been submitted on behalf of the respondent in this proceeding, which was not produced before the Estate Officer he left the matter to the discretion of the Court since it was also a communication intra party. Thus the submission on the part of the respondent is deemed to be an weaker attempt. Thus the submission on the part of the respondent is deemed to be an weaker attempt. The relevant part of the case of Rena Drego (Mrs) (supra) is set out below:- “It would have been well for the High Court to remind itself that it was not exercising certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution but a supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 which obliges the High Court to confine to the scrutiny of records and proceedings of the lower tribunal. By relying on fresh materials which were not before the Tribunal, the High Court should not have disturbed findings of facts in exercise of such supervisory jurisdiction. It is now well nigh settled that power under Article 227 is one of judicial superintendence which cannot be used to upset conclusions of facts, however erroneous those may be, unless such conclusions are so perverse or so unreasonable that no court could ever have reached them”. 14. That apart the document cannot be said complete one until and unless entire preceding and subsequent correspondences are annexed. 15. In view of the above, I do incline to remain confined within the available materials on record for disposal of the instant proceeding since the new document, whatever merit it would have, when was not produced for consideration by the Estate Officer, cannot be accepted to take note of any different fact than what has been established so far, within supervisory jurisdiction. The issue No. 1 accordingly is answered in the negative. 16. Mr. Bhattacharya also fairly submitted that the proceeding under the Act before the Estate Officer being quashi civil in nature, law of limitation also would apply in the proceeding. But submitted, that the eviction proceeding of the year 1999 under the Act and order of eviction and damages thereto attained finality on April 18, 2007 after being tested upto the writ appeal A.P.O.T. No. 603 of 2006, and, within three years therefrom the impugned notice under Section 7 of the Act was issued i.e. on February 17, 2009. According to Mr. According to Mr. Bhattacharya, since the respondent was kept engaged in the legal proceedings from one stage to the other and since the notice under Section 7 was issued only after attainment of finality of order of eviction and damage it was not illegal or inoperative since there was continuing cause of action till disposal of the writ appeal followed by delivery of possession of the impugned property on February 01, 2008. 17. The impugned notice has four parts. Firstly, the rate of assessment, secondly, the amount assessed, thirdly, balance in arrears and fourthly, period of arrears. This is settled law that the point of limitation is mixed question of fact and law, which is determined on available materials on record. 18. From the impugned notice it appears that amount was assessed to the tune of Rs. 38,04,942/- as per Calcutta Port Trust’s Rent Schedule for the period from 31.03.2000 to 31.01.2008. The respondent did not submit any other document than the impugned notice under Section 7 issued on 17.02.2009 to show that prior to it the respondent had ever issued any notice claiming the assessed damage by mentioning period thereto. Had it been so, I arrived at the conclusion that law of limitation will apply in the case. Therefore, by the impugned notice the opposite party may have claimed but cannot be entitled to get any part of amount covering the period already time barred by the lapse of time. The ‘dues recoverable’ means as this Court held earlier “legally recoverable”. Equally the term ‘payable’ means which is lawfully payable. That is why the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of New Delhi Municipal Committee Vs. Kalu Ram held “If a person in arrears raises a dispute as to the amount payable cannot ignore existing laws. If the recovery of any amount is barred by the law of limitation, it is difficult to hold that the Estate Officer could still insist that the said amount was payable. When a duty is cast on an authority to determine the arrears of rent, the determination must be in accordance with law. Section 7 only provides a special procedure for the realization of rent in arrears and does not constitute a source or foundation of a right to claim a debt otherwise time-barred”. When a duty is cast on an authority to determine the arrears of rent, the determination must be in accordance with law. Section 7 only provides a special procedure for the realization of rent in arrears and does not constitute a source or foundation of a right to claim a debt otherwise time-barred”. Similar view has been followed by this Court diluting the case of Kalu Ram (supra) in the case of M/s. Automobile Association Vs. The Board of Trustees (supra). 19. Now taking the ratio of the decisions, cited above, the legal position comes out that the Estate Officer cannot insist the unauthorized occupant to make any amount payable which is time barred. To explicit myself let me lay, when such a duty for assessing damage and issuance of notice determining the arrears for its recovery do cast upon the authority then the determination must be held in accordance with law, and if there appears any contravention of law then the authority equally is to suffer. Admittedly, the proceeding was initiated on February 18, 1999 and order for eviction and damages for wrongful occupation on and from April 01, 1990 was passed on March 28, 2000. The opposite party thereafter had to defend the proceedings after proceedings as were initiated at the instance of the petitioner up to writ appeal which ultimately went with the order of dismissal on April 18, 2007. It is redundant to say that being defeated at one stage and in taking next step being aggrieved by, the petitioner had taken also protection against eviction etc. by obtaining stay order. Although any material to that extent has not been brought by either side, there was no hurdle on the part of the opposite party to issue notice under Section 7 proximately after the initial order of eviction and damages which was passed on March 28, 2000 at least to get protection against law of limitation. Had there been any such notice following the order of eviction etc. the same might have been stayed, but such step would have been saviour against the hurdle of limitation as has come up on the way. Therefore, the argument of Mr. Bhattacharya in having continuing cause of action in the case to get rid of the Law of Limitation is not accepted. 20. There is distinction between “liability”, “claim” and “satisfaction of claim”. Therefore, the argument of Mr. Bhattacharya in having continuing cause of action in the case to get rid of the Law of Limitation is not accepted. 20. There is distinction between “liability”, “claim” and “satisfaction of claim”. In the matter of liability it was fixed with the initial order of eviction which has been tested up to the writ appeal under reference, and the liability as regard payment of damages for unauthorized occupation as well was set at rest up to the decision of this Court given in C.O. 2122 of 2009 and C.O. 2048 of 2009 however by keeping the point of limitation open for consideration by the Estate Officer, on which I have already exerted my findings. 21. In the case on hand, the respondent issued notice under Section 7 dated 17.2.2009 claiming damages for the period from 31.3.2000 (i.e. after the order of eviction) till 31.1.2008 (i.e. till before date of handing over of possession) i.e. for about seven years ten months. 22. Therefore, under the law though the petitioner is liable to pay damage or mesne profits till before delivery of possession of the premises as an unauthorized occupant, but the respondent in view of the facts and circumstances, is entitled to realise the amount only which is not barred by Law of Limitation. The ratio of the decision in the cases of Kalu Ram (supra),G.R Gupta Vs. Lok Sabha (supra), and the case of M/s. Automobile Association of Eastern India and Ors. Vs. The Board of Trustees (supra) are indicative to arrive at the firm conclusion that in the case on hand the opposite party is entitled to get damages for three years only i.e. from 31.1.2008 preceding to 31.1.2005 since the damage covering the period preceding from 31.1.2005 is held as time barred. Similarly the amount as assessed and shown as the balance in arrears in the notice is required to be recalculated by the Estate Officer, and he is also at liberty to re-assess the rate and to impose also interest over the amount of the damage to be so assessed as per norms or available law. 23. Similarly the amount as assessed and shown as the balance in arrears in the notice is required to be recalculated by the Estate Officer, and he is also at liberty to re-assess the rate and to impose also interest over the amount of the damage to be so assessed as per norms or available law. 23. Be it mentioned, and, to avoid any confusion it is made clear that the Estate Officer shall act on the given notice under Section 7(3) of the Act by making modification only with regard to the period and amount of damages/ mesne profits by re-assessing the same and to complete the exercise by its quantification for the period mentioned hereinbefore restricting to the period of three years only as mentioned above, preferably within three months from the date of communication of this order. 24. In view of above, the finding of the Estate Officer “the Limitation Act has no application in the proceedings before this Estate Officer which is not a Civil Court governed by the Civil Procedure Code” is set aside, and observation of the Estate Officer to the effect “Section 15 of the Act puts a complete bar on entertaining any matter before the Civil Court in respect of Public Premises” is held as misconceived one. The issue no. (ii) is thus answered in the affirmative. 25. It is made clear that non-putting of fresh number by initiation of new proceeding in the matter of issuance of notice under Section 7 of the Act having made no distinction as already held by this Court and since the Estate Officer is yet to reach finality by re-assessing the damages by way of quantifying the damage/mesne profits with reference to the period only from 31.1.2005 to 31.1.2008 with interest which is only held to be legally recoverable, the petitioner is directed to appear and co-operate with the Estate Officer concerned by appearing on the date/dates to be so fixed by the Estate Officer, of course, to the knowledge of the petitioner, for getting the exercise complete within the given period, and for which the petitioner in person or through representative shall appear before the Estate Officer with reference to the pending proceeding under Section 7 of the Act on February 9, 2016 which date shall be deemed to be the date of communication for all purpose. 26. 26. Since the period of claim and rate of damages/mesne profits are supposed to be reduced in modification of the claim by order of the Estate Officer, communication of said order of the Estate Officer after modification to the petitioner shall be deemed to be part and parcel and in continuation of the impugned notice which shall be deemed to have been served, if it is so done by the Estate Officer in compliance with the order of this Court, upon the petitioner, who in its turn shall comply with the order of the Estate Officer within time, to be given by the Estate Officer, failing which law will take its own course. The impugned notice under Section 7 of the Act in the facts and circumstance is thus held not illegal and therefore need not be rescinded or recalled. The issue No. (iii) also is answered accordingly. 27. The impugned order of the Estate Officer is accordingly modified. The application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is allowed in apart. 28. There is no order of cost. 29. Department is directed to send at once one copy of such order to the concerned Estate Officer for information and necessary action on and from February, 9, 2016. 30. The petitioner is also given liberty to serve a copy of certified copy of such order upon the respondent. Urgent Photostat certified copy be supplied to the parties, if applied for.