JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. In filing the writ petition, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 26.12.2015 passed in OPP Appeal No.1 of 2005 confirming the order dated 4.5.2012 passed by the Estate Officer involving a proceeding against the petitioner under OPP (EUO) Act, 1972 and the communication dated 1.5.2012 in the proceeding bearing No.HO-EUO-1158 of 2012, also seeking a declaration that the locking of the petitioner’s establishment dated 17.6.2014 is illegal, further for a declaration that the order passed by the Estate Officer as well as the letter referred to hereinabove are not binding on the petitioner on the premises of acceptance of ground rent on 21.2.2014. 2. Facts as involved in the writ petition are that the petitioner as the promoter of M/s. Shreeram Motors took over the industrial assets of M/s. Reliance Motors over Plot No.166/D, measuring an area of Ac.0.69 decimals in Mancheswar Industrial Estate for the balance of the lease period for establishment of a Repairing & Servicing Unit of Automobiles on the terms and conditions already there in respect of the allottee entering into an agreement earlier. Acceptance of terms and conditions was drawn by virtue of a lease deed with the petitioner being executed on 13.1.2005. As per the terms, the petitioner was required to install machinery and start industrial activities over the disputed land within a period of 12 months from the date of allotment. As the petitioner failed to utilize the land for the purpose under the lease agreement and further misutilised the land by way of subletting to various units for running medicine shop, telephone booth encroaching IDCO land and also encroaching IDCO road by illegally allowing parking of heavy vehicles thereby creating obstruction in the normal traffic in the locality, involving all these, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 20.4.2005. For not receiving the response in due time, IDCO authority cancelled the allotment of land in favour of the petitioner and asked the petitioner to hand over the Industrial plot free from all encumbrances within 15 days with a liberty to go for appeal against the cancellation order. Since the petitioner did not give the vacant possession of the Industrial plot, the Corporation applying provisions in OPP (EUO) Act, 1972 initiated an eviction proceeding before the Estate Officer. Since the petitioner did not give the vacant possession of the Industrial plot, the Corporation applying provisions in OPP (EUO) Act, 1972 initiated an eviction proceeding before the Estate Officer. The Estate Officer on disposal of the original proceeding passed the order of eviction against the petitioner giving the petitioner 15 days more time to vacate the land. Petitioner’s failing to give possession of the leased land on her own, eviction drive was undertaken on 17.6.2014 evicting the petitioner taking over the leased property to IDCO’s custody. Petitioner contended that being aggrieved by the high handed action of the IDCO authority, the petitioner approached this Court in filing writ petition and this Court though did not incline to interfere in the matter but finding the petitioner having the appeal remedy under the OPP (EUO) Act, 1972, directed the petitioner to file appeal before the appropriate forum. As a consequence, the petitioner filed OPP Appeal No.1 of 2015. The appeal was dismissed by order dated 26.12.2015 under Annexure-3. 3. Assailing the impugned orders, petitioner taking resort to Clause-11 and Clause 32 of the agreement contended that in the event the lessee is liable to be evicted, the lesser may be in his discretion continued the allotted property in the occupation of the lessee on payment of such fine by the lessee, as may be decided by the lesser and in such case, as if there is no eviction of the lessee and claimed that even though the eviction order was passed on 4.5.2012 and was handed over to the petitioner at a belated stage on 22.7.2014 but by this time the opposite parties have accepted the ground rent from the petitioner. It is contended by Sri Nayak that under the above circumstances, the petitioner gets protection of Clause 32 and shall be deemed to be continuing in occupation of the property and should not have been treated as an unauthorized occupant. It is also claimed that the petitioner has been malafidely victimized, the original authority as well as the appellate authority have all failed in appreciating this aspect of the matter resulting the illegal impugned orders. It is also claimed that the order by the appellate authority also suffers on account of no opportunity of hearing granted to the petitioner. It is also claimed that the petitioner has been malafidely victimized, the original authority as well as the appellate authority have all failed in appreciating this aspect of the matter resulting the illegal impugned orders. It is also claimed that the order by the appellate authority also suffers on account of no opportunity of hearing granted to the petitioner. The authorities under the OPP (EUO) Act, 1972 have all failed in appreciating the provision contained in Clause-32 of the agreement and also the consequence of receipt of rent in the intervening period. It is under these premises, the petitioner prayed for interfering in the impugned action as well as impugned orders and while setting aside the impugned orders to declare the impugned action of the IDCO authority as bad. 4. In his opposition, the opposite party nos.2, 3 and 4 being represented by Sri Gautam Mukharjee, learned counsel apart from filing a counter affidavit challenged the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner on the premises that petitioner did not bother to pay the statutory dues of the IDCO towards ground rent as well as other charges for which the arrear rent accumulated. The claim of the petitioner that rent being submitted by her has been accepted by the authority and the receipts have been filed as Annexure-2 creates a right in her favour, referring to the receipts under Annexure-2, Sri Mukharjee, learned counsel contended that the amount received under Annexure-2 are ground rent and interest for the delayed payment and not fine whereas Clause-32 of the agreement clearly indicates the lessee may be allowed to continue over the allotted property on assessment by the lesser and payment of fine by the lessee. Therefore, there is no assessment or payment of fine and under the circumstances, petitioner taking resort to the conditions stipulated in Clause-32 is of no assistance to the present case. It is contended by Sri Mukharjee that payment of ground rent is just clearing the arrear rent, which is a condition attached to the lease agreement and the petitioner has not shown any favour to the Corporation on clearing arrear rent. It is contended by Sri Mukharjee that payment of ground rent is just clearing the arrear rent, which is a condition attached to the lease agreement and the petitioner has not shown any favour to the Corporation on clearing arrear rent. Further, for the admitted fact involving in W.P.(C) No.1553 of 2015, a writ petition moved by one Aswini Kumar Sahu claiming to be the tenant under the present petitioner involving disputed property, allegation of the Corporation that the petitioner has misused the conditions stipulated in the lease agreement for subletting the disputed property without consent of the Corporation also got established. It is thus claimed that petitioner not only has violated the conditions of the agreement but also got the use of the property contrary to the conditions and thereby misutilised the conditions in the agreement. It is on these premises, Sri Goutam Mukharjee, learned counsel appearing for the contesting opposite party nos.2, 3 and 4 justified the orders passed by both the authorities under the OPP (EUO) Act, 1972 and submitted that the writ petition having no merit may be dismissed. 5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds that the petitioner has the following allegations: (1) The appeal has been decided without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing; (2) For acceptance of rent, there has been violation of conditions attached to Clause-32 of the lease agreement by the contesting opposite parties and the petitioner cannot be declared in unauthorized possession. 6. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and after perusal of the documents filed therein, this Court finds Clause-32 of the lease agreement between the parties reads as follows: Clause 32 of the lease agreement: “Notwithstanding anything herein before contained where the lessee has become liable to be evicted or is evicted from the said property under any of the fore going conditions, the Lessor may be in its discretion continue the allotted property in the occupation of the lessee on payment of such fine by lessee as may be decided by the lessee and in such case this agreement shall have effect as if there had been no eviction of the lease.” Reading of the clause, it makes clear that the stipulation given in the Clause-32 is binding on both the sides. For the conditions made in the lease agreement therein, particularly, in Clause-3 indicating to install plants and machinery within 12 months and go into Commercial production within 12 months from the date of taking over possession of the property. Petitioner was required to strictly comply the same within time frame. Clause-3 further stipulates that the lessee shall not assign or transfer or encumber or part with his interest either in part or in whole in any manner what so over without the prior approval of the lessor. Clause-12 speaks the lessee shall not use the property for any purpose other than the one for which the allotment has been made in his favour by the lessor. Looking to the indication of the violation of the conditions by the petitioner, notice in the matter of cancellation of allotment against the petitioner as appearing at Annexure-3, this Court finds the Corporation had the following specific allegations against the petitioner: 1. You have mis-utilized the industrial property by way of subletting to outsider for running of heavy machinery workshop/Earth moving Equipment, Rigs etc. 2. You have constructed the building deviating the approved building plan. 3. You have made encroachment IDCO land measuring Ac.0.030 4. You have not utilized the plot for the purpose for which it was allotted. 5. You have encroached upon the road side land by parking the heavy vehicle/machineries on the road side berm (land) thereby causing damage & obstruction to the free movement of traffic. 6. You have defaulted in payment of statutory dues. 7. Perusal of the order of the original authority as well as the appellate authority, this Court finds both the authorities after taking into consideration the violation of the conditions by the petitioner indicated hereinabove have come to a concurrent finding of fact that the petitioner has misutilised the conditions contained in the lease agreement and thus liable to be evicted. It appears, petitioner has miserably failed in both the authorities in establishing her case before both the authorities. Reading the allegations against the petitioner as quoted hereinabove, this Court also finds there has been violation of conditions at Clause 12 and 32 of the agreement by the petitioner. Clearing arrear rent cannot absolve the petitioner from his violations of condition at Clause 12 and 32 of the agreement. Further, looking to the pleadings available in W.P.(C).No.1553 of 2015 filed by one Mr. Clearing arrear rent cannot absolve the petitioner from his violations of condition at Clause 12 and 32 of the agreement. Further, looking to the pleadings available in W.P.(C).No.1553 of 2015 filed by one Mr. Aswini Kumar Sahu, a brief of which was also provided along with this writ petition for the purpose of perusal and looking to the allegation made against the petitioner by the contesting opposite parties, this Court finds a clear admission by the said writ petitioner in parargaphs-4 and 5 indicating that the properties under lease were sublet by the petitioner to the said Mr. Aswini Kumar Sahu. This Court finds the allegation that the petitioner sublet the property under the lease agreement remain established. 8. Now, coming to the allegation of the petitioner that the order of the Estate Officer in the matter of eviction has been decided without affording reasonable opportunity, this Court on perusal of the order passed by the original authority along with the impugned order under Annexure-3 finds both the authorities found that there has been misutilisation of the industrial property by way of subletting to outsider in clear deviation of the conditions in the agreement, not only that, there also involved a case for non-utilisation of the land for the purpose for which the land was allotted. Both the authorities have held that the petitioner is liable to be evicted for gross abuse of the conditions in the lease agreement. Further, looking to the discussions in the order passed by the appellate authority, this Court finds the allegation of the petitioner that the orders remain bad for non-compliance of natural justice also remain unfounded. Payment of rent and receipt of the same by the authority at a subsequent stage cannot legalise the violations made by the petitioner, which are all of serious in nature. Condoning such violations will make lease agreement of this nature ineffective and unenforceable. 9. In view of the discussions and findings hereinabove, this Court finds there is no illegality in any of the impugned orders. Consequently, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Parties to bear their respective cost.