ORDER 1. The writ petitioner company is a Government company 51% or more of its shareholding is held by the Central Government. The first and second respondents are statutory entities constituted by the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The other respondents are their functionaries or officers. 2. The petitioner company is under the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India. The said respondents are also under the control of the Central Government. The petitioner carries on business of refining and marketing of high speed diesel, motor spirit, superior kerosene oil, lubricants, greases, LPG etc. It has dealers and distributors all over the country. 3. The petitioner is in possession of premises, 1, Harimohan Ghosh Road, Kolkata-700 024. It is a filling station run by a dealer of the petitioner, under the name of Ramnagar Service Station. 4. At the time of argument it was submitted that originally this property was under the occupation of Caltex, an American Company. With the passing of Caltex Acquisition Act, 1977 all the right, title and interest of this organisation, including those in the said property passed to the petitioner. 5. In the writ petition the petitioner has pleaded that they were before 1958 and still are monthly tenant/lessee under the first respondent. That is not exactly the position. On 1st May, 1965 the first respondent granted a lease of ten years to the petitioner in respect of the above property. It was renewed for a further period of ten years. Therefore in or about May, 1985 the lease expired. 6. From 17th June, 2002 the writ petitioner is paying rent at the rate of Rs. 33, 750.50 per month, a fresh tenancy having been created in their favour in May, 1985. In 2013, by consent of the parties the rent was increased to Rs. 81,000/- per month. 7. Now, the cause of aggrievement of the petitioner was a notice dated 21st February, 2005 issued by the Estate Officer, Kolkata Port Trust under Section 7(1) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 asking why arrears of rent Rs. 34,88,486.61 from 1st May, 1985 till 31st July, 2002, together with simple interest, should not be paid by the petitioner. Another notice of the same date alleged that for non-payment of the rental dues the petitioner was an unauthorised occupant. 34,88,486.61 from 1st May, 1985 till 31st July, 2002, together with simple interest, should not be paid by the petitioner. Another notice of the same date alleged that for non-payment of the rental dues the petitioner was an unauthorised occupant. This notice was issued under Section 7(4) (i) of the said Act of 1971 asking the petitioner to show-cause why they should not be evicted from the said premises. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner cited the Supreme Court decision in Suhas H. Pophale vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2014 (4) SCC 657 : AIR 2014 SC 1509. The ratio of this decision is that if there was an existing tenancy on the date of coming into force of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, i.e. 16th September, 1958 then the subject premises would not be public premises within the meaning of Section 2(e) (2) of the said Act. 9. The said sub-section reads as follows: 2(e)……………. (2) Any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of. (i) Any company as defined in section 3 of the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956), in which not less than fifty-one per cent, of the paid up share capital is held by the Central Government or any company which is a subsidiary (within the meaning of that Act) of the first-mentioned company. 10. Therefore putting it in another way the intention of the legislature was that this Act would apply to public premises as defined in the above sub-section created after coming into force of the said Act. He argued that the petitioner was a successor in interest of Caltex Limited. All rights and obligations of this company were vested in the petitioner by Caltex Acquisition of Shares Act, 1977. Since Caltex was in occupation of the said premises much before coming into force of the said Act, as a tenant, the said Act did not apply to the premises in question. Following the ratio of the above Supreme Court decisions the ordinary law relating to tenancy applied. He urged that the Court should fix fair rent for the premises. 11. I am unable to agree. It is true that on 1st May, 1965 the respondents granted a lease of ten years of the subject premises to Caltex which, on expiry was extended for a further period of 10 years. He urged that the Court should fix fair rent for the premises. 11. I am unable to agree. It is true that on 1st May, 1965 the respondents granted a lease of ten years of the subject premises to Caltex which, on expiry was extended for a further period of 10 years. This lease expired in or about 1985. There was no further renewal of the lease after May, 1985. A fresh monthly tenancy/lease was created in May, 1985. 12. Subsequently, the petitioner has been paying rent of Rs. 33,750.50 per month with effect from 17th June, 2002. 13. Once again, in 2013 a new arrangement was entered into between the petitioner and the port authorities whereby the rent was increased to Rs. 81,000/- per month. 14. Therefore, there is no difficulty in holding that a fresh monthly tenancy was created after expiry of the original lease by efflux of time in 1985. Hence, this monthly lease or tenancy was a new legal relationship between the petitioner and the respondents. Being a tenancy created after coming into force of the said Act, the subject premises became a public premises within the meaning of the said sub-section of the said Act. 15. Therefore the argument on behalf of the petitioner that the ordinary rent laws would apply is rejected. 16. The impugned notices were issued in proper exercise of jurisdiction by the Estate Officer. But in view of my reasoning above, they will only cover the period after creation of a new lease/tenancy post coming into force of the said Act, i.e. 16th September, 1958. I direct the petitioner to appear before the Estate Officer so that an appropriate order can be passed with regard to the payment of rent by the petitioner. 17. I am of the opinion, that the Estate Officer should not pass any order for eviction of the writ petitioner because after issuance of the impugned notices, by consent of the parties rent was enhanced from time to time to Rs. 81,000/- per month. However, the Estate Officer will be free to fix the monthly rent payable by the petitioner for the relevant period only and if there is default in payment of such rent, he may take steps for eviction of the petitioner after issuing another appropriate notice. The estate officer will pass a reasoned order upon hearing the parties. 18. However, the Estate Officer will be free to fix the monthly rent payable by the petitioner for the relevant period only and if there is default in payment of such rent, he may take steps for eviction of the petitioner after issuing another appropriate notice. The estate officer will pass a reasoned order upon hearing the parties. 18. There is an added reason for this court entertaining the view that the writ petitioner should not be evicted. That reason is that like the respondent authorities, the petitioner is also a creature of a central statute and one creature of the central statute should not evict another creature of a central statute, unless the reasons are compelling. 19. This writ application is accordingly disposed of by the above order. 20. Certified photocopy of this judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities. Order accordingly.