WP(C) 5659/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N.SARMA Claiming to be a tenant under the Bijni Town Committee, the petitioner has appro ached this Court to protect his interest of possession in the tenanted premises. When a letter dated 22.6.2007 was issued by the Vice Chairman of the Bijni Town Committee intimating that the petitioner is not the tenant in respect of the Ro om No. 85 the same was allotted to one Kajal Roy but the petitioner was unauthor isedly using the same. The Town Committee has also returned the Cheque dated 31. 5.2004 which was forwarded to the petitioner. Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner and M.R. Das, l earned counsel appearing for the Binji Town Committee. The claim of the petitioner is that he is the tenant under the Bijni T own Committee in respect of Room No. 85 and in support of his tenancy has presse d into service a certificate issued by the Chairperson of the Town Committee whi ch was issued in the name of one Narayan Rajiv Das, son of late Ram Rajiv Das. T he petitioner has also referred to the trade license issued by the Town Committe e in his name to run the trade of 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 Ka jol 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 monthly rent of Rs. 265(Rupees two hundred and sixty five as per Cl ause -7 of the agreement sub-tenancy is totally prohibited. In violation of the said clause, the lessee Kajol Roy has allowed the present petitioner to run his business of Dry-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 in question but he did not. He also approached this Cou rt by filing W.P.(C) No. 4201/2007 to protect his interest of possession in the tenanted premises, which was disposed on 20.8.2007 directing the Town Committee to dispose of the representation so filed by the petitioner protecting his inter est of possession till such disposal. The Town Committee vide its letter dated 2 0.11.2007 intimated the petitioner about the disposal of the representation wher ein it is stated that the room in question was not granted to him rather it was granted to Kajol Roy under whom the petitioner is the sub-tenant. In the meantim e, the period of lease of the original lessee Kajol Roy has also expired. Again vide letter dated nil October 2006, the petitioner in answering to the dem and of the Town Committee to vacate the suit premises within 3 days, replied tha t he needs at least 2(two) months time to vacate the same. That period is also o ver. 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. In view of the above considerations, I do not find any merit in this app lication and accordingly this writ petition stands dismissed. The interim order passed earlier stands vacated.