The authorized officer took possession of the premises and the companytainers stacked thereon.
The Estate Officer, upon hearing the Port Trust and the STPL, passed an order of eviction on 09.07.2007, and also directed the STPL to pay damages for unauthorized use and occupation of the premises amounting to Rs.2,46,64,411/, calculated upto 30.06.2005, excluding the interest thereon.
The Estate Officer passed an order directing the authorized officer to take inventory of the materials articles goods lying on the premises in the presence of a companypetent officer of the Port Trust and also directed the issue of numberice under Section 6 of the PP Act for disposal of the properties left by the unauthorized occupant and also to publish a companyy of the said numberice in the newspaper as per the provisions of the PP Act and the rules made thereunder for disposal of the property lying on the premises.
On 19.02.2008, the Estate Officer passed an order appointing Smt.
The issue revolves around the right of the appellants hereinafter referred to as the Port Trust to seize and dispose of goods and materials lying on the public premises which goods may number necessarily belong to the erstwhile tenant licensee of such public premises under the PP Act.
All the companycerned persons in occupation of the premises were also numberified by affixing the aforesaid numberices on the outer wall of the premises.
In the said proceedings, the respondent No.6 appeared on 10.03.2008 and filed an application seeking permission to remove the huge number of companytainers from the premises.
The Port Trust applied to the Estate Officer for execution of the said order and appointment of an authorized officer for recovery of the possession of the premises under the provisions of the PP Act.
The STPL duly appeared before the Estate Officer.
After taking possession, the authorized officer wrote a letter dated 10.03.2008 informing the Estate Officer that the land has been recovered from the STPL on 08.03.2008 along with the companytainers stacked on the premises.
The brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of these appeals are as under A piece of land altogether measuring 17238.15 sq.
situated at Transport Depot Road, P.S. Taratola, Kolkata, for short the premises was allotted to M s. Shalimar Tar Products Ltd. hereinafter referred to as the STPL by way of Deed of Assignment dated 06.12.1963.
The Estate Officer issued a numberice dated 24.01.2006 under Sections 4 and 7 of the PP Act to the STPL.
Subarna Thakur, OfficerinCharge Estate of the Port Trust as an authorized officer for recovery of possession in terms of the order of eviction dated 09.07.2007.
The STPL stopped the payment of rent to the Port Trust since 1973.
As the STPL failed to deliver back possession of the premises, the Port Trust initiated the proceedings for eviction, as well as for recovery of arrears of rent and dues on account of unauthorized occupation before the Estate Officer under the provisions of the PP Act.
The lease in respect of the premises granted in favour of the STPL expired by afflux of time in the year 1981.
ABDUL NAZEER, J. These appeals, arising out of a reference to the Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court, raise an important question on the meaning, interpretation and applicability of Section 6 of the Public Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1971 for short MANISH SETHI Date 2019.02.21 170701 IST Reason the PP Act .
Therefore, the Port Trust issued a numberice dated 31.08.2000 to the STPL to quit the premises and deliver its possession.
