Calcutta High Court Upholds Eviction Order Against PWD for Bentinck Street Premises
In a significant legal development, the Calcutta High Court has reinforced a lower court's directive, ordering the Public Works Department (PWD) to vacate its rented office at 67, Bentinck Street in Kolkata within a strict 90-day timeframe. This decision comes after a prolonged legal battle over the tenancy of the premises, which has been occupied by the state department since 1961.
Background of the Tenancy Dispute
The property at 67, Bentinck Street is owned by D Das and Brothers, who leased a portion to the PWD for operating a public utility service office. The monthly rent was set at Rs 44,422, a figure that became central to the legal proceedings. According to the PWD's counsel, the department has been a tenant at this location since 1961, highlighting the long-standing nature of the occupancy.
Lower Court's Ruling and Legal Basis
On May 19, 2023, the lower court issued a directive for the PWD to vacate the premises within 90 days. The court based its decision on the classification of the tenancy under the Transfer of Property Act rather than the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act. This distinction was made because the monthly rent exceeded Rs 10,000, placing it outside the purview of the state-specific tenancy legislation.
The lower court emphasized that under the Transfer of Property Act, tenants are obligated to vacate the premises once the landlord serves a notice of ejectment. In this case, the landlord, D Das and Brothers, had issued such a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on August 5, 2016, followed by a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
PWD's Arguments and Court's Rejection
During the proceedings, the PWD's counsel attempted to challenge the eviction order by arguing that the department occupied three separate portions of the building, each with different rent receipts. They contended that these should not be combined to reach the total rent of Rs 44,422. However, the trial court dismissed this claim, stating that no substantial evidence was provided to support the argument. The court maintained that the tenancy should be viewed as a single entity for legal purposes.
High Court's Decision and Delay in Appeal
Despite the lower court's decree in May 2023, the PWD did not comply with the eviction order. Instead, the state department filed an appeal with the Calcutta High Court's division bench, comprising justices Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya and Supratim Bhattacharya. Notably, this appeal was submitted after a delay of approximately 220 days.
While the division bench condoned the delay in filing the appeal, it pointed out that no specific reason was provided for the tardiness. The available materials suggested that red tapism—bureaucratic delays—might have been a plausible cause for the postponement. Ultimately, the high court upheld the lower court's directions, reinforcing the mandate for the PWD to vacate the premises within the stipulated 90 days.
Implications and Next Steps
This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to tenancy laws and the legal obligations of both landlords and tenants. For the PWD, it means relocating its public utility service office from the Bentinck Street location after decades of operation. The decision also highlights the judiciary's role in addressing delays in legal processes, particularly in cases involving government departments.
As the 90-day deadline approaches, all eyes will be on the PWD's compliance with the court order, marking a pivotal moment in this long-standing tenancy dispute in Kolkata.
