WA 118/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.K. GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN (A.K.Goel, CJ.) This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge dis missing the writ petition of the appellant seeking a direction to allow him to c ontinue his business as tenant from the shop in question. Case of the appellant is that he was a tenant under the Bijni Town Commi ttee, District Chirang, Assam. The Town Committee sent a letter refusing to reco gnize him as tenant on the ground that he had unauthorizedly taken over the shop from one Shri Kajal Roy, who was the tenant and had died. The appellant relied upon trade licence issued by the Town Committee in his name and payment of rent by him. However, it was not disputed that the Town Committee leased out the shop in question to Shri Kajal Roy vide lease agreement dated 29.3.2006 for a period of three years prohibiting any sub-tenancy and tha t the appellant was inducted as sub-tenant in violation of the said terms by Shr i Kajal Roy. Since there was no evidence establishing that the appellant was ten ant or that his sub-tenancy was valid, learned Single Judge declined to interfer e in the matter. It was observed - The claim of the petitioner is that he is the tenant under the Bijni Tow n Committee in respect of Room No.85 and in support of his tenancy has pressed i nto service a certificate issued by the Chairperson of the Town Committee which was issued in the name of one Narayan Rajiv Das, son of late Ram Rajiv Das. The petitioner has also referred to the trade licence issued by the Town Committee i n his name to run the trade by Dry-cleaning business. The aforesaid claim of the petitioner is denied by the Bijni Town Committee by filing counter. The case of the Town Committee is that the disputed Room No.85 was leased out to one Kajol Roy vide agreement dated 29.3.2006 for a period of 3 years from 1.4.2006 to 31.3 .2009 by which the said Room No.85 was leased out for 36(thirty six) months on m onthly rent of Rs.265 (Rupees two hundred and sixty five) as per Clause-7 of the agreement sub-tenancy is totally prohibited. In violation of the said clause, t he lessee Kajol Roy has allowed the present petitioner to run his business of Dr y cleaning business in the said Room as his sub-tenant. When this matter came to the notice of the Town Committee, the petitioner was asked to vacate the room i n question but he did not. He also approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.42 01/2007 to protect his interest of possession in the tenanted premises, which wa s disposed on 20.8.2007 directing the Town Committee to dispose of the represent ation so filed by the petitioner protecting his interest of possession till such disposal. The Town Committee vide its letter dated 20.11.2007 intimated the pet itioner about the disposal of the representation wherein it is stated that the r oom in question was not granted to him rather it was granted to Kajol Roy under whom the petitioner is the sub-tenant. In the meantime, the period of lease of t he original lessee Kajol Roy has also expired. Again vide letter dated nil Oc tober 2006, the petitioner in answering to the demand of the Town Committee to v acate the suit premises within 3 days, replied that he needs at least 2(two) mon ths time to vacate the same. That period is also over. From the materials made available before me including the pleadings of t he parties and documents enclosed thereto, it is made clear that the petitioner is not the lessee under the Bijni Town Committee but he is the sub-tenant lessee under Kajol Roy. The original lease with Kajal Roy has also expired on 31.3.200 9 and the petitioner was allowed to do his business in violation of the lease de ed. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant is unable to show that the factual mat rix, as noted above was incorrect. In the circumstances, no ground is made out t o take a view different from the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed.