Ravi Krishan Kapur,J. - (1.)The petitioner assails a notice dated 7 January, 2021 ("the impugned notice") issued by the Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property, the respondent no.3, inter alia directing that Premises no.B-15, Garden Reach Road, Kolkata-700024 ("the premises") be declared to be a 'public premises' under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 ("the Act").
(2.)The premises measures approximately 19 bighas, 13 kattahs and 14 chittaks. In other words, the area of the premises is approximately 20 bighas more or less. It is alleged on behalf of the petitioner that the premises falls within the purview of the Enemy Property Act, 1968. On 1 January, 2009, a formal lease agreement was executed by and between the Custodian of Enemy Property, Mumbai (the respondent no.2) and the petitioner company whereby the respondent no.2 granted a lease to the petitioner company for a period of 36 months at a monthly rent of Rs.20000/- only commencing from 1 January, 2009. It is difficult in words to describe the bounty thus leased out to the petitioner for a princely sum of Rs.20,000/- only. It is also alleged that on 1 January, 2012 there was a second renewal of the said lease granted by and between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 which has also clearly expired by efflux of time. Thereafter, it is alleged by the petitioners that they had handed over a cheque as advance payment of the lease in respect of the premises for the month of January 2021 and the same was encashed by the respondents. However, a subsequent cheque dated 04.02.2021 for a sum of Rs.24,311/- only was forwarded sometime in February, 2021 was admittedly not encashed and was sought to be refunded by the respondent no.2.
(3.)On 7 January, 2021 the respondent no.3 issued the impugned notice whereby the premises was declared to be a 'public premises' by the Competent Authority and the petitioner company was directed to handover vacant possession of the premises failing which the respondent would initiate proceedings under the Act for eviction of the petitioner company. It is also alleged that a jural relationship came into existence between the petitioner company and the respondent no.2 of lessor and lessee and the same is subsisting for a period of three years beginning from 7 January, 2021. It is further contended that there are no grounds to classify the premises as a 'public premises' and no proceedings ought to be initiated under the Act against the petitioner company.