UJJAL BHATTACHARJEE Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 13 (thirteen) numbers of petitioners have approached this Court challenging, inter alia, notices dtd. 13/2/2024 issued by the Chief Engineer (C) ASTC being the Authorized Signatory informing that the allotment of the schedule premises to the respective petitioners were cancelled with immediate effect and they were directed to vacate the schedule premises and deliver peaceful vacant possession to the ASTC within 30 days. Few of the petitioners were also directed to pay certain outstanding dues to the ASTC.

(2.) I have heard Shri S. K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioners. The ASTC as well as the State respondents are represented by the learned Advocate General, Shri D. Saikia assisted by Shri R. Borpujari, learned counsel. The learned AG has also referred to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 5/3/2024.

(3.) Unfolding his submissions, Shri Talukdar, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are running their business for the last about 20 years in the premises of the ASTC at Paltanbazar. In this connection, he has referred to the allotment letters to the petitioners and one such allotment in respect of the petitioner no. 1 is dtd. 17/12/2005. It is submitted that the said allotment letter envisages payment of monthly rent, construction of a room to run the business, revision of rent. The allotment order also contains a clause that if the space is required by the ASTC, the same has to be vacated with a month's notice. It is submitted that the different businesses were run by the petitioners in the space allotted to them by constructing structures which even includes two-storey building. The learned counsel submits that the land of the ASTC cannot be termed as a Government land and existence of the lease makes the ASTC a landlord within the meaning of the Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (hereinafter the Act of 1972).