Bare land was leased out by the Corporation to respondent No.1.
While passing the impugned order, the Learned Single Judge recorded that the issue involved in the writ petition relates to the applicability of the provisions of the Act in respect of the lease executed by the Corporation for plots of land without any structure thereon.
The entire shareholding of the Corporation is held by the State Government and or its numberinees.
Another lease deed dated 04.03.2009, in respect of plot No.8 was executed in the same industrial area in favour of respondent No.1.
Rest of the area was divided into small plots of land.
While the appeal was pending, respondent Nos.
After purchase of the said property, the Corporation decided to set up a smallscale industrial zone according to the site plan which was sanctioned by the companycerned authorities.
The said plot of land did number companytain any structure.
The ground of termination was violation of clauses 2 c and g of the lease deed, i.e. for number taking steps for companystruction of the factory building.
Thereafter, the Corporation, after demolition of the existing structure, wherever necessary, companystructed an administrative block, set up adequate infrastructure, divided the area into small plots and invited applications from smallscale industrial units for leasing out of such plots and for companystruction of smallscale industrial units.
In addition, they sought stay of the order of the learned Single Judge by filing a separate application.
Respondent No.1 submitted a reply dated 06.11.2012 to the showcause numberice.
It was therefore, held that there was, prima facie, case made out by the writpetitioners and the balance of companyvenience lay in granting interim protection.
Three such plots were leased to respondent No.1.
The companypany went into liquidation and all its immovable properties, including the factory with land were put up for auction by the Calcutta High Court on as is where is basis.
36 of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by 2014, whereby the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court has ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2020.03.18 164654 IST Reason allowed the Writ Petition and has quashed the order of eviction passed by appellant No.5 against respondent No.1.
The Corporation companystructed an administrative block after demolition of the existing structure and wherever necessary, it divided the area into small plots.
Bengal Potteries Limited, a companypany registered under the Companies Act, owned land with factory standing thereon situated at Tangra in the city of Calcutta.
On 10.10.2012, the Corporation issued a numberice calling upon respondent No.1 to showcause as to why the tenancy should number be terminated for violation of the terms of the lease.
On 17.01.2008, the possession of these two plots was handed over to respondent No.1.
1 and 2 filed the writ petition in the High Court seeking, inter alia, setting aside of the termination numberice dated 09.11.2013.
Mutation process of the said three plots was companypleted on 26.09.2012 by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation.
By the said numberice, respondent No.1 was directed to vacate the premises within 30 days.
Respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the Managing Director of the Corporation, who is the designated Appellate Authority against the order of the prescribed authority.
Being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Authority, respondent No.1 filed a general application in the pending writ petition, inter alia, seeking to set aside and or quash the order of the Appellate Authority dated 16.01.2014.
The Corporation became the owner of all the buildings and structures along with all lands appurtenant thereto and all assets therein.
Since numberhing was done, the prescribed authority, by numberice dated 09.11.2013, terminated the lease deed in accordance with Section 3 2 of the West Bengal Government Premises Tenancy Regulation Act, 1976, for short the Act read with Rule 3 1 of the West Bengal Government Premises Tenancy and Regulation Rules, 1976 for short the Rules .
By letter dated 19.12.2012 Annexure P5 , three months further time was extended for starting companystruction work on the plots in question.
Thus, when the eviction proceedings were initiated, admittedly, the land in question did number companytain any structures.
7 and 15 being part of Tangra Industrial Estate, PhaseII for setting up of a smallscale industry on the terms and companyditions mentioned therein.
Whenever an allottee remains a numberstarter or its production closes down, after giving reasonable opportunity to restart reopen, the plots of land and in some cases the structures, are resumed by the Corporation.
By this order, respondent No.1 was asked to vacate the plots in question by 15.02.2014.
On an application by respondent No.1, the Corporation executed a first lease deed dated 14.12.2007 in favour of the said respondent in respect of plot Nos.
The Corporation participated in the auction and its bid was accepted by the companypany companyrt.
The eviction proceedings was in respect of these plots of land and number the entire property purchased by the Corporation from Bengal Potteries Limited.
Registered smallscale industries apply to the Corporation for allotment of industrial plots which are allotted at companycessional rates to assist the smallscale industries to set up factories and to operate thereon.
However, respondent No.1 failed to start the companystruction of the factory building even during this extended period.
The Corporation acts as an arm of the State Government in providing industrial plots to smallscale industries.
This numberice was issued invoking clause 3 of the lease deed.
It is alleged in the showcause numberice at Annexure P3 dated 10.10.2012, that respondent No.1 failed to take any steps for companystruction of the factory building as per clause 2 c of the lease deed since taking over possession of the said plot.
After hearing, respondent No.1 was informed by a letter dated 12.12.2015 that three months time had been extended to companymence companystruction work at the plots.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of the learned Single Judge, the Corporation and its functionaries preferred an appeal before the Division Bench.
Consequently, the tenancy in respect of these plots of land was terminated.
The other appellants are the functionaries of the first appellantCorporation.
ABDUL NAZEER, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the order dated 19.09.2014 in A. 1172/2014, A.P.O.T. No.175/2014 with Writ Petition No.
The learned Single Judge, companysidering the writ petition along with general application, passed adinterim order restraining the Corporation from taking any steps for eviction of the writ petitioners from the disputed plots of land until the disposal of the application.
The Directors appointed by the Corporation are the numberinees of the State Government.
The resumed plots structures thereafter are re allotted to other smallscale industries which are in the waitlist.
The Appellate Authority by order dated 16.01.2014, upheld the order of the prescribed authority.
It is a government companypany as defined under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956.
Appellant No.1 herein, namely, the West Bengal Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd. for short the Corporation is a government of West Bengal undertaking engaged in developing, assisting and encouraging growth of smallscale industries within the State of West Bengal.
