JUDGMENT : Harish Tandon, J. The short question which fell for consideration before this Court is whether the proceeding for eviction initiated under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as 'PP Act', should remain stayed till the proceeding for fixation of fair rent filed before the Rent Control under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 is finally decided. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner no. 1 was allowed to use and occupy 2000 sq. meter of land belonging to the opposite party no. 1 on the basis of a letter dated 18.04.1990 describing it as a licensee for the purpose of storage and repair of the empty containers at a monthly payment of Rs. 400/- per 100 sq. meter per month together with the occupier's share of Municipal Tax levied thereupon. The monthly payment was enhanced from time to time until the opposite party no. 1 by notification dated 02.03.2011 intended to enhance the same. The petitioner filed an application before the Rent Control for determination of the fair rent under the provision of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997. The opposite party no. 1 appeared in the said proceeding and raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the said proceeding, which is still pending. 3. The opposite party no. 1 initiated a proceeding for eviction of the petitioners from the suit premises by issuing a notice under Sections 4 and 7 of the PP Act. The petitioner filed reply to a show cause issued under Section 4 of the PP Act and thereafter filed another application for stay of the proceeding pending before the Estate Officer till the disposal of the proceeding before the Rent Control. The Estate Officer rejected the said application on the ground that once the premises is governed by the PP Act, it overrides the applicability of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and therefore the plea of the petitioners that the eviction proceeding should remain stayed till the disposal of Rent Control proceeding is not tenable. 4. Various judgments are cited by the Estate Officer in support of the aforesaid findings, which this Court feels need not be gone into for the present purposes. However, the emphasis appears to have been made on a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in case of Banatwala & Co. 4. Various judgments are cited by the Estate Officer in support of the aforesaid findings, which this Court feels need not be gone into for the present purposes. However, the emphasis appears to have been made on a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in case of Banatwala & Co. v. L.I.C of India reported in AIR 2011 SC 3611, which was also cited before the Estate Officer on the proposition of law that if the PP Act does not contain any provision relating to fixation of fair rent that does not impliedly override the applicability of the Act of 1997 and therefore the proceeding for fixation of fair rent is maintainable under the said Act. 5. The Estate Officer distinguished the judgment on the premise that the same was decided in relation to the premises held by Life Insurance Corporation of India, which is a local authority and exempted under the provision of the Rent Control Act, which cannot apply in the present case as the Kolkata Port Trust is governed by the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. 6. The learned Advocate for the petitioner vehemently submits that the findings of the Estate Officer is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Banatwala & Co. (Supra), wherein it was held that the statutory authority may be competent to initiate a proceeding for eviction under the PP Act but there is no exclusion of the provision of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 in relation to the fixation of fair rent and therefore the decision of the Rent Control in this regard binds the Port Trust as well. 7. On the other hand, the opposite party submits that once the provisions of the PP Act applies to the premises owned by the Board of Trusties under the Major Port Trusts Act, it necessarily excludes the operation of the Rent Control Legislation and therefore the provision for fixation of fair rent does not apply. 8. On the conspectus of the relevant submissions advanced by the learned Advocates, this Court feels appropriate to meticulously examine the ratio laid down in Banatwala & Co. (Supra) to find out whether the contention of the petitioner or the contention of the opposite party are correct. 8. On the conspectus of the relevant submissions advanced by the learned Advocates, this Court feels appropriate to meticulously examine the ratio laid down in Banatwala & Co. (Supra) to find out whether the contention of the petitioner or the contention of the opposite party are correct. In the said report, the question, which came up for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether the provisions of fixation of standard rent and the provision relating to the applications of the landlord for maintenance of the essential services under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 are applicable in respect of a Public Premises, which is otherwise covered by the provision of PP Act. The appellant therein was a tenant under the Life Insurance Corporation of India, a statutory corporation constituted under the Life Insurance Corporation of India Act, 1956 on the basis of an agreement for lease, which was extended from time to time and no proceeding for eviction was initiated by the corporation. The corporation revised the monthly rent from time to time which was lastly enhanced from Rs. 6891/- to Rs. 39,069/-. 9. A Writ Petition was filed before the Bombay High Court challenging the arbitrary increase of the rent in the year 2004, which was, later on, withdrawn as the corporation agreed not to enforce such increase of rent. Subsequently the corporation discontinued working of the lift of the building which was again challenged before the Small Causes Court, Mumbai claiming relief for restoration of such services. The corporation took a plea therein that the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 does not apply, which was turned down by the Division Bench of the Court. Subsequently, the corporation again enhanced the rent and an application was filed before the Small Causes Court, Mumbai for fixation of standard rent. The challenge to the jurisdiction was further raised which was turned down by the Court. A Writ Petition was filed challenging the said order, which was allowed. As a result thereof the proceeding for fixation of the standard rent was dismissed as the premises is not governed by the said Rent Control Act. 10. The matter came up before the Supreme Court and the point as indicated herein above came up for consideration. A Writ Petition was filed challenging the said order, which was allowed. As a result thereof the proceeding for fixation of the standard rent was dismissed as the premises is not governed by the said Rent Control Act. 10. The matter came up before the Supreme Court and the point as indicated herein above came up for consideration. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that though the premises occupied by the appellant therein are public premises within the definition of the 'public premises' under the PP Act but the same is restricted to the eviction and recovery of arrears rent and not for fixation of standard rent and therefore it does not exclude the applicability of Maharashtra Rent Control Act. In course of an argument the reliance was placed upon a Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in case of Ashoka Marketing Ltd. & Anr. v. Punjab National Bank & Ors. reported in (1990) 4 SCC 406 wherein it was held that since the PP Act is also a special statute and not a general enactment, which is the later one must prevail over the Rent Control Act in accordance with the principle that the later laws abrogate earlier contrary laws. It was further observed in Ashoka Marketing (Supra) case that when two or more laws operate in the same field, each containing non-obstante clause stimulating and incisive problems of interpretation arises and such cases have to be decided in reference to the object and purposes of laws under consideration. The Constitution Bench concluded with the observation that the provisions of the PP Act to the extent they cover premises falling within the ambit of Rent Control Act overrides the provision of the Rent Control Act. 11. The Supreme Court, further, noticed the other earlier judgment rendered in case of Kaiser-I-Hind Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. National Textile Corpn. (Maharashtra North) Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2002) 8 SCC 182 where one of the question before the Constitution Bench was, whether the provision of the Bombay Rent Act having reenacted after 1971 shall prevail over the provisions of the PP Act. v. National Textile Corpn. (Maharashtra North) Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2002) 8 SCC 182 where one of the question before the Constitution Bench was, whether the provision of the Bombay Rent Act having reenacted after 1971 shall prevail over the provisions of the PP Act. It was held that the Bombay Rent Act, which was enacted by the Maharashtra Act No. 12 of 1970 was extended and the Article 254(1) of the Constitution of India assumed relevancy and therefore to the extent of repugnancy the State legislation will not prevail over the central legislation. 12. After noticing the aforesaid judgments, the Supreme Court in Bantawala's case ultimately held:- "72. In the circumstances, we hold as follows: (a) The provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 with respect to fixation of Standard Rent for premises, and requiring the landlord not to cut off or withhold essential supply or service, and to restore the same when necessary, are 69 not in conflict with or repugnant to any of the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. (b) The provisions of the Public Premises Act, 1971 shall govern the relationship between the public undertakings covered under the Act and their occupants to the extent they provide for eviction of unauthorised occupants from public premises, recovery of arrears of rent or damages for such unauthorised occupation, and other incidental matters specified under the Act. (c) The provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 shall govern the relationship between the public undertakings and their occupants to the extent this Act covers the other aspects of the relationship between the landlord and tenants, not covered under the Public Premises Act, 1971. (d) The application of appellant and similar applications of the tenants for fixation of Standard Rent or for restoration of essential supplies and services when necessary, shall be maintainable under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999." 13. (d) The application of appellant and similar applications of the tenants for fixation of Standard Rent or for restoration of essential supplies and services when necessary, shall be maintainable under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999." 13. After the exposition of law in the concluding portion of the judgment of the Banatwala's case, which noticed the earlier Constitution Bench decision, it is apparent that even if the tenancy is created in respect of a public premises as defined under the PP Act yet the application for fixation of standard rent/fair rent would be maintainable under the Rent Control Act as the PP Act does not deal with such aspect of the matter and therefore there is no inconsistency or repugnancy with the PP Act in this regard. The Estate Officer distinguished the judgment rendered in case of Banatwala as the said decision is application in case of a local authority like Life Insurance Corporation of India and therefore shall not be applicable in the instant case as the Kolkata Port Trust had been constituted under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. Section 3 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 deals with the constitution of the Board of Trusties to be constituted by the Central Government in respect of any major port. Section 5 thereof says that every board constituted under the said Act shall be a body corporate with power to hold or dispense of the property and may by name by which it is constituted sue or be sued. 14. The definition of the 'public premises' given under Section 2(e) of the PP Act includes any premise belonging to or taken on lease by or on behalf of any Board of Trusties constituted under the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. It shall not be fallacious to say that the opposite party no. 1 satisfies the definition of a public premises and have every power, jurisdiction and authority to initiate a proceeding for eviction of an unauthorized occupant of the premises belonging to it. 15. The question is still begging an answer whether the provision relating to fair rent under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 can still apply? Section 3 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 which contains exemption clause in the sense that certain premises owned by the Central or the State or the Statutory Body shall not be governed by the said Act. Section 3 of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 which contains exemption clause in the sense that certain premises owned by the Central or the State or the Statutory Body shall not be governed by the said Act. It is profitable to quote the Section 3, which runs thus:- "S.3 Exemption. - Nothing contained in this Act shall apply to- (a) any premises owned by - (i) the Central Government, or (ii) any State Government, or (iii) a Government undertaking or enterprise, or (iv) a statutory body which is not a local authority, or (v) a Cantonment Board constituted under the Cantonments Act, 1924 (2 of 1924), or (vi) a local authority; [(aa) any premises being a wakf property exclusively for Wakf Lillah (other than Wakf ul Aulad)] (b) any tenancy created by the Central Government, or any State Government in respect of the premises taken on lease or requisitioned by that Government; [(c) any tenancy where the lease with due consent of the tenant has been registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), after the commencement of this Act, and the fact of such consent has been recorded in the instrument so registered;] (d) any premises rented to a foreign mission or international agency; [(da) any tenancy created by a foreign mission or an international agency, either by way of lease or otherwise;] (e) any premises let out for residential purpose, not being a premises within the purview of clause (c), which carries more than- (i) [ten thousand rupees] as monthly rent in the areas included within the limits of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation or the Howrah Municipal Corporation, or (ii) [five thousand rupees] as monthly rent in other areas to which this Act extends. Explanation.- Where any premises is let out partly for residential purpose and partly for non-residential purpose, the provisions of clause (f) shall apply to such premises in proportion to respective areas." 16. There is no clear exclusion and / or exemption of the operation of the law so far as the Board of Trustees constituted under the Major Port Trusts Act is concerned. The Act of 1997 imbibed within itself the concept of- 1. Eviction of a tenant; 2. Protection against the eviction; 3. Fixation of fair rent; 4. Restoration of essential services; 5. Deposit of rent with the Rent Control etc. 17. The Act of 1997 imbibed within itself the concept of- 1. Eviction of a tenant; 2. Protection against the eviction; 3. Fixation of fair rent; 4. Restoration of essential services; 5. Deposit of rent with the Rent Control etc. 17. The law is more or less settled in this regard that in case of a repugnancy and/or inconsistency with the provisions between the Special Acts, the PP Act shall prevail to the extent of a repugnancy and the provisions which are not covered therein cannot be deemed to have overridden the Rent Control Legislation. The West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 though the State Act is promulgated subsequent to the PP Act having taken the ascent of the President of India. In the similar situation the Supreme Court of India in Banatwala (Supra) held:- "61. The question in this case is different in the sense that the MRC Act which is a State Act, is an Act subsequent to the Public Premises Act, and has been assented by the President, notwithstanding the existence of the Public Premises Act. The situation, therefore, would be governed by Sub-article (2) of Article 254 of the Constitution, and we will have to see whether the provisions of MRC Act with respect to the fixing of the standard rent and restoring the essential supplies and services are in any way repugnant to the Public Premises Act. In Vijay Kumar laid down that whenever repugnancy is alleged, what has to be first examined is whether the two legislations cover or relate to the same subject matter. The test for that is to find out the dominant intention of the two legislations. If the subject 60 matters covered by the legislations are different, merely because the two legislations refer to some allied or cognate subjects they do not cover the same field. 62. We have noted the observations of a Bench of three Judges of this Court in M/s Jain Ink Mfg. Co. (supra) that the Public Premises Act has a very limited application, whereas the Rent Act is an Act with much wider application than the Public Premises Act. In the present case, the subjects of fixation of Standard Rent and restoration of essential services by the landlord are covered under the MRC Act, but in no way under the Public Premises Act. The Public Premises Act, in fact does not claim to cover these subjects. In the present case, the subjects of fixation of Standard Rent and restoration of essential services by the landlord are covered under the MRC Act, but in no way under the Public Premises Act. The Public Premises Act, in fact does not claim to cover these subjects. As held by the Constitution Bench in Kesoram Industries Ltd. (supra), the Court has to look at the substance of the matter. Regard must be had to the enactment as a whole, to its main objects and scope of its provisions. Incidental and superficial encroachments are to be disregarded. Eviction and recovery of arrears of rent are alone covered under the Public Premises Act. The subject of fixation of rent is different and independent from eviction as held by the division bench of the Karnataka High in Bharath Gold Mines. That being the position, there is no conflict between the MRC Act and the Public Premises Act when it comes to the provisions in the MRC Act with respect to fixation of Standard Rent and requiring the landlord to maintain the essential services and supplies. Therefore, the provisions of MRC Act in that behalf cannot in any way be said to be repugnant to those under the Public Premises Act. The presumption is in favour of constitutionality, and the Court is not expected to strike 61 down a provision unless the conflict is a real one. In the present matter there is no such real conflict." 18. It is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid observations that though the eviction of unauthorized occupant, recovery of rent and damages are matters expressly covered by the PP Act and to that extent it overrides the provisions of the Rent Control Act but since the PP Act is silent on the aspect of fixation of fair rent, the proceeding of such nature is maintainable. Even after having held so, yet this Court finds that the ultimate decision of the Estate Officer does not require any interference. The Estate Officer was confronted with the point whether the eviction proceeding initiated under the PP Act should remain stayed till the finalization of the rent control proceeding for fixation of fair rent. 19. Since, both the aspects are different and distinct as held in Banatwala's case, this Court does not find any impediment in continuance of those proceedings simultaneously. 20. The order impugned does not require interference. 21. 19. Since, both the aspects are different and distinct as held in Banatwala's case, this Court does not find any impediment in continuance of those proceedings simultaneously. 20. The order impugned does not require interference. 21. The revisional application, bearing no. C.O. 1710 of 2016 is dismissed. 22. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 23. In view of the findings recorded above, the revisional application no. C.O. 2178 of 2016 is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.