WP(C) 7073/2002 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY 1. Heard Mr. D.P. Chaliha learned senior counsel appearing for the petition er. Also heard Mr. D. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos . 1 & 2. Mr. J. Handique, learned Govt. advocate appears for the respondents 3 & 7. Mr. N. Chakraborty, learned counsel represents the private respondents 4,5 & 6. 2. This case pertains to a claim to the stall No. 100 (86) measuring 20 s q. m. approx. in the daily market of Kharupetia Town of Darrang District. The st all in question was transferred in the name of the petitioner from the earlier a llottee Shri Siv Karan Sarmah, by an order dated 7.5.93 issued by the Executive Officer of the Kharupetia Town Committee. 3. On 25.10.02 a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner with three allegations namely, (i) That the petitioner had not been running the shop himself in the allotted s tall No. 86. (ii) That he had sub-let the allotted stall to 4 other persons and is collecting rentals from those sub-lessees; and (iii) That the petitioner is a defaulter of the toll dues to the Town Committee. With these allegations, the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the all otment of the stall should not be cancelled. 4. The petitioner in his reply dated 25.10.02 denied that he had sub-let th e stall to respondent Nos.4,5 & 6 and instead claimed that the petitioner is doi ng partnership business with 2 of the respondents and is running a medicine shop and a fertilizer shop from the allotted stall, as a partner of the two private respondents. Accordingly the petitioner contended that there is no justification for cancellation of the allotment. 5. In the impugned order dated 5.11.2002 (Annexure IV) passed by the Execut ive Officer of the Town Committee the petitioner’s reply was considered and the statement of the private respondents 4,5 & 6 were also recorded. In their statem ents the private respondents claimed that they are individually running their re spective businesses in the stall allotted to the petitioner by paying monthly re nt and also by paying Rs.25,000/- each to the petitioner before getting possessi on of space in the petitioner’s stall and the respondents also stated that it is false claim of the petitioner that he is doing partnership business with the p rivate respondents. 6. When it was found that the petitioner had sub-let the space in the allot ted stall to the three private respondents and is making huge rental profit, whi le paying a toll @ Rs.2.93 paisa per day i.e. Rs.76/- per month, to the Town Com mittee and the petitioner himself is not doing any business in the allotted stal l as he does not possess any Trade Licence in his own name, the allotment of the stall to the petitioner was cancelled by the impugned order and it was also dir ected that the space in the stall now be proportionately allotted to the 3 priva te respondents. 7. Mr. Chaliha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner contend s that the petitioner having been allotted the stall premises, was also within his right to sub-let the said premises and for this reason, cancellation of allo tment would not be justified. The learned counsel also contends that there are s everal other allottees of stalls under Kharupetia Town Committee who have sub-le t their respective stalls’ space to other businessmen and the petitioner has bee n selectively targeted for cancellation of allotment. 8. Appearing for the Kharupetia Town Committee, it is submitted by Mr. D. M ajumder that the claim made by the petitioner that he is doing partnership busin ess with the private respondents 4,5 & 6 from the allotted stall was found to be a false claim and it was also found that the petitioner has sub-let the space w ithin the stall to the 3 private respondents, which was not permissible as this stall was allotted to the petitioner to enable him to do business himself in the daily market. 9. Mr. N. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4,5 & 6 submits that the respondents were inducted as tenants into the stall premises by the petitioner and that the respondents are conducting their respective busin esses independently and the petitioner is no way connected with the business bei ng carried out by the private respondents. 10. In order to establish that the respondents are occupying the stall not a s business partners but as tenants of the petitioner, Mr. Chakraborty refers to the additional affidavit filed on 29.2.08 by the respondents 4,5 & 6 to show tha t the petitioner has filed 3 Eviction Suits against the 3 respondents by claimin g them to be his tenants in the allotted stall in the daily market, who have def aulted in paying rent to the petitioner and on which basis, ejectment of the pri vate respondents is sought in Title Suits No. 12/2003, 13/2003 and 14/2003 filed in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Darrang. Mr. Chakraborty also submits that after the 3 suits were decreed, the re spondents took up the matter in Appeal and by the common judgment dated 6.12.06 passed by the learned District Judge, Darrang in Title Appeal Nos. 2/2006, 3/200 6 & 4/2006 the eviction decree was reversed and the petitioner has now filed Civ il Revision Petitions against the judgment dated 6.12.2006 passed in favour of t he respondents/tenants and the said Civil Revision Petition Nos. 88/2007, 89/200 7 & 90/2007 are now pending final disposal before this Court. 11. From the allotment order dated 7.5.93 (Annexure- I C), it appears that K harupetia Town Committee allotted the stall in the daily market to the petitione r. It further appears that when the petitioner had sub-let the space within the stall to 3 tenants to enable them to carry on their independent business and the petitioner personally was not doing any business from the allotted stall, the s how cause notice dated 25.10.02 was issued seeking to cancel the allotment. When the petitioner’s claimed that he is doing business from the stall premises in partnership with the private respondents 4,5 & 6 the said claim was found to be unsubstantiated and false. Thereafter the impugned order was issued whereby t he allotment in favour of the petitioner was cancelled and direction for allotme nt to the actual user of the stall was ordered. 12. The petitioner’s claimed that he is entitled to sub-let the allotted sta ll premises without himself carrying on any business in my view cannot be accept ed in as much as the allotment of the stall is made subject to daily toll connec tion at a nominal Rs. 2.93 paisa. Obviously under such circumstances the allotme nt was meant to be given to an allottee who himself does his business from the s tall premises. Allotment was not obviously meant to be used by an allottee to su b-let the allotted premises to other businessman and to make a rental income, in the context of the nominal daily toll charged by the Town Committee. 13. From the very reply of the petitioner in response to the show cause noti ce dated 25.10.02 where the petitioner claims that he is doing business in partn ership with the respondents 4,5 & 6 in the allotted premises, it is apparent th at the petitioner was aware that the sub-letting of the allotted stall is not pe rmissible and the allottee is required to do business himself personally from th e allotted premises, by paying daily toll to the Town Committee. 14. The fact that the respondents 4,5 & 6 were inducted as sub-tenants under the petitioner and that the petitioner was not conducting any business with the m as partners is established, by the statement of the private respondents and al so by the 3 ejectment suits filed by the petitioner to evict the 3 private respo ndents from the allotted premises. 15. In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any justification to inter fere with the impugned order dated 6.11.02 (Annexure IV) merely on the ground th at there may be other allottees within the Town Committee who have also let out their allotted premises. Accordingly I do not find any vested right in favour of the petitioner to continue with the possession of the allotted stall No. 100(86 ) and therefore the impugned order dated 5.11.02 is sustained and the writ petit ion is dismissed. Interim order, if any, also stands recalled.