JUDGMENT : 1. This is an application by the petitioners for recall of the order dated 14th March, 2017 passed in C.O. No. 1892 of 2016 (National Insurance Company Limited vs. Chiranjan Addy and Others). 2. Petitioners are the partners of Sandersons & Morgans which is a firm of Advocates and Solicitors and became the tenant in the suit premises owned by Royal Insurance Co. Ltd. 3. According to the petitioners, prior to enactment of the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972, Royal Insurance Building was owned by Royal Insurance Co. Ltd. and on enactment of the said Act, it became a company owned by the Government of India. On 22nd November, 1972, Government of India formed a private company known as “General Insurance Co. Ltd.” and was incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 and in terms of Section 9(1) of the General Insurance Business (Nationalization) Act, 1972. Subsequently, the several Indian Insurance Companies shares acquired by Central Government merged into four insurance companies namely, National Insurance Co. Ltd. the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The Royal Insurance Co. Ltd. merged with the respondent. 4. Under a registered deed of lease dated 30th November, 1977 duly registered on 23rd December, 1978 the petitioner/defendant as lessor granted lease in favour of the opposite parties/plaintiffs. In terms of the said lease, the plaintiffs/opposite party continued to make payment to the defendant/petitioner monthly rental of Rs. 3,416/- and after expiry of the said lease the petitioners deposited the rent every month with the Rent Controller in the name of the plaintiff no. 8 on refusal by the petitioners/defendants to accept such rent. 5. On 20th January, 1979, a notice to quit was issued on behalf of defendant which was served on the then partners of the petitioner no. 8 herein and Ejectment Suit No. 227 of 1982 was instituted by the defendant in the City Civil Court at Calcutta impleading the then partners of the plaintiff no. 8 and monthly rent was deposited on behalf of the plaintiff no. 8 in the pending suit. 6. Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration as tenant under the defendant under the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. 7. 8 and monthly rent was deposited on behalf of the plaintiff no. 8 in the pending suit. 6. Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration as tenant under the defendant under the provisions of West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. 7. The Ejectment Suit No. 227/82 was dismissed on 27th January, 1997 and rent was tendered on behalf of the petitioners in the name of the firm “Sandersons & Morgans” to the petitioner National Insurance Company Ltd. on 14th February, 1997 and the rent month by month was deposited in the Rent Controller in view of refusal to accept rents. 8. On and from 22nd December, 1980 the definition of “Public Premises” in the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupant) Act, 1971 was amended by the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Amendment Act, 1980 whereby the premises owned by the subsidiary of Government Companies became the “Public Premises” under the said Act. 9. On behalf of these opposite parties/plaintiffs it is urged that the plaintiff no. 8 is a lawful monthly tenant of the petitioner Co. in respect of the portion of the suit premises at a monthly rental of Rs. 2780/- as per the deed of lease with space for car parking and accordingly they filed a Title Suit 1080 of 2012 for declaration of their lawful tenancy in respect of the suit premises, for cancellation of the notices dated 10th July, 2012; 4th October, 2012 issued by the opposite party and permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of enjoinment ingress and egress to the suit premises by the plaintiffs. 10. It is specifically contended by Mr. H.K. Mitra, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties that they were inducted in the suit premises as a tenant in occupation prior to 16th September, 1958 and as such, the plaintiff/opposite party no. 8 is not governed by the Public Premises Act, 1971. 11. On behalf of the petitioner/defendant, Mr. Abhijit Gangopadhyay assisted by Ms. Supriya Dubey submitted that an application under Order 7, Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed in the Court below after having entered appearance for rejection of the plaint inter-alia on the ground that the suit is barred by Section 15 of the Public Premises Act, 1971 which enjoins as under— “15. Supriya Dubey submitted that an application under Order 7, Rule 11(d) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed in the Court below after having entered appearance for rejection of the plaint inter-alia on the ground that the suit is barred by Section 15 of the Public Premises Act, 1971 which enjoins as under— “15. Bar of jurisdiction.—No court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of— (a) the eviction of any person who is in unauthorised occupation of any public premises. (b) the removal of any building, structure or fixture or goods, cattle or other animal from any public premises under section 5A. (c) the demolition of any building or other structure made, or ordered to be made, under section 5B. (cc) the sealing of any erection or work or of any public premises under section 5C. (d) the arrears of rent payable under sub-section (1) of section 7 or damages payable under sub-section (2), or interest payable under sub-section (2A), of that section. (e) the recovery of — (i) costs of removal of any building, structure or fixture or goods, cattle or other animal under section 5A. (ii) expenses of demolition under section 5B. (iii) costs awarded to the Central Government or statutory authority under sub-section (5) of section 9. (iv) any portion of such rent, damages, costs of removal, expenses of demolition or costs awarded to the Central Government or the statutory authority.” 12. The plaintiffs before the trial Court in order to clarify their position in view of a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Suhas H. Pophale vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Its Estate Officer, (2014) 4 SCC 657 , took out an application for amendment of their plaint that they cannot be treated under the provision of Public Premises Act. It would be apposite to reproduce the observation made in the cited decision as the paragraph 59 for profitable understanding which reads thus— “59. In Ashoka Mktg., this Court was concerned with the premises of two nationalized banks and Life Insurance Corporation. As far as Life Insurance Corporation is concerned, the life insurance business was nationalized under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. In Ashoka Mktg., this Court was concerned with the premises of two nationalized banks and Life Insurance Corporation. As far as Life Insurance Corporation is concerned, the life insurance business was nationalized under the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956. Therefore, as far as the premises of LIC are concerned, they will come under the ambit of the Public Premises Act from 16.9.1958 i.e. the date from which the Act is brought into force. As far as the nationalized banks are concerned, their nationalization is governed by the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 and therefore, the application of the Public Premises Act to the premises of the nationalised banks will be from the particular date in the year 1970 or thereafter. For any premises to become public premises, the relevant date will be 19.9.1958 or whichever is the later date on which the premises concerned become the public premises as belonging to or taken on lease by LIC or the nationalized banks or the general insurance companies concerned like the first respondent. All those persons falling within the definition of a tenant occupying the premises prior thereto will not come under the ambit of the Public Premises Act and cannot therefore, be said to be persons in “unauthorized occupation.” Whatever rights such prior tenants, members of their families or heirs of such tenants or deemed tenants or all of those who fall within the definition of a tenant under the Bombay Rent Act have, are continued under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. If possession of their premises is required, that will have to be resorted to by taking steps under the Bombay Rent Act or the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. If the person concerned has come in occupation subsequent to such date, then of course the Public Premises Act, 1971 will apply.” 13. In the application under order 6, rule 17, on 23rd September, 2015 the opposite parties sought to incorporate certain facts. If the person concerned has come in occupation subsequent to such date, then of course the Public Premises Act, 1971 will apply.” 13. In the application under order 6, rule 17, on 23rd September, 2015 the opposite parties sought to incorporate certain facts. The amendment was allowed defending an application under order 7, rule 11 filed by the petitioner National Insurance Company Limited by the impugned order dated 22nd April, 2016 against which the petitioner filed C.O. No. 1892 of 2016 challenging the amendment order contending that the suit premises is admittedly a public premises and the notices were issued to the opposite parties under Section 15 of the Act for unlawful occupation of the suit premises and the matter was decided by setting aside the order dated 22nd April, 2016 passed by 7th Bench of the City Civil Court, Calcutta. 14. Since none appeared on behalf of the opposite parties, the C.O. No. 1892 of 2016 was disposed of upon hearing Ms. Dubey learned Advocate for the petitioner ground for non appearance on call by the opposite parties that upon the express assurance of the Advocate-on-record of the applicant that he would not move the matter, the petitioners in this application missed the opportunity to portray the points is not convincing to the judicial mind. However, it is pointed out that the petitioner Co./defendant has already filed additional written statement in the suit before learned trial Court. Secondly, the amendments which the petitioners sought for in the plaint do not change the cause of action of the suit. Thirdly, the amendments which the petitioners sought for in the plaint do not change the nature and character of the suit. Fourthly, the amendments sought for was in pursuance to the above cited judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In 2014 which is subsequent to the filing of the plaint. Fifthly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that the Public Premises Act cannot be applied to the occupant who came into possession thereof, prior to the application of the said Act i.e. prior to 16th September, 1958 and lastly, the amendments were necessitated to incorporate subsequent change in law thereby giving even rights to the petitioners rendering the notices illegal and without jurisdiction. 15. 15. It is true that the present opposite parties as plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration of their tenancy right over the suit premises claiming themselves to have been inducted as tenant and have been in possession as such carrying on their law firm business but admittedly, the said suit premises is a public premises owned by the petitioner. 16. Now the issue as to whether the said public premises unlawful occupant Act would be applicable in the present case or not is obviously the issue for decision in accordance with the evidence to be adduced by the parties before the trial Court. This Court is of the view that the plaintiffs in the suit may contend before the learned trial Court the legal proposition of law held by the Hon’ble Apex Court but such legal proposition in law is not required to be incorporated in the plaint though the parties can plead facts pertaining to issue in lis. 17. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants of CAN No. 2774 of 2017 that plaintiff no. 8 as a tenant in respect of the suit premises is protected under West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act and without the due process of law under the State Statute, the petitioner cannot be evicted by application of provision of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Amendment Act, 1980. In my view this is enough when the plaintiffs have claimed to be a tenant having come to occupy prior to the application of the said Public Premises Act and they can adduce evidence by production of the deed of indenture under which they were initially inducted such tenants. 18. The opposite party has filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11(a) of C.P. Code raising the plea that Civil Court jurisdiction is barred under Section 15 of the Public Premises Act which inter-alia, provides under Section 15(a) that no Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of the eviction of any person who is in unauthorized occupation of any public premises. 19. 19. In my humble view, contentions so made in the foregoing paragraphs, the plaintiffs/ opposite parties in revisional application are at liberty to submit before the trial Court if the Civil Court jurisdiction is barred or not barred under Section 15 of the said Public Premises Act by reason of the non-applicability of the said Act prior to 1958 at the time of hearing of application under Order 7, Rule 11(d) of C.P. Code. 20. On perusal of the order impugned, I do not find reasons assigned by the trial Court while allowing the application for amendment of the plaint in respect of a proposition of law which cannot be allowed to be sustained, however, learned Court may take into consideration the contentions of the opposite parties/plaintiffs afresh while hearing application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of C.P. Code and if required amendment application may be considered afresh in case of finding that the public premises is not applicable in case of the plaintiffs and thus to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible. 21. In the context above, the CAN No. 2774 of 2017 and C.O. No. 1892 of 2016 are disposed of but without any order as to costs.