JUDGMENT :

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.

This matter has been taken up for hearing online because of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions.

2. Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, Mr. Awanish Nandan Sinha, learned G.P. and Mr. Suresh Prasad Singh No.1, learned counsel for the respondent no.5.

3. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 31.07.2021 passed in Misc./Appeal/Revision Petition No. 02/2019 by the Administrator-Cum-Appellate Authority, Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board (since dissolved), Patna, whereby an order dated 01.10.2018 passed in Case No. 01/2018 by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Patna City-cum-Special Officer, Agriculture Produce Market Committee (dissolved), Musallahpur, Patna, has been set aside and the license to use Shop No. 59 and 115, located in Agricultural Produce Market Area, Musallahpur, Patna has been held to be non-existent.

4. The petitioner claims to be the daughter-in-law of late S. Manzoor Alam and widow of late S. Jamil Alam, son of the said S. Manzoor Alam. There does not appear to be any dispute over the fact that late S. Manzoor Alam was allotted shop No. 59 in the market area by the Chairman, of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Musallahpur, Patna, a copy of which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-2 to the writ application. S. Manzoor Alam died on 28.12.1989, leaving behind, according to the petitioner, two widows, viz. Bibi Sago Khatoon and Bibi Sultana Khatoon. The petitioner, it is stated, is the widow of one of the sons of late S. Manzoor Alam out of his wedlock with Bibi Sago Khatoon. Respondent No. 5 is also son of late S. Manzoor Alam and Bibi Sago Khatoon.

5. Before delving into the other aspects of the controversy, it will be appropriate to note the two conditions incorporated in the agreement, which are as under : -

“Fifthly : That the licensee shall not by reason of being allowed to use such building, acquire or be entitled to any right or interest whatsoever, save and except the right, enjoy or use the said building subject to the conditions of this agreement. xxx xxx xxx

Ninthly : That if the license is not renewed, the licensee shall vacate the premises within 30 days of the expiry of the license at his own expense and if the licensee fails to vacate the building within thirty days from the expiry of the licensee committee shall be entitled to realize a penal charge @ Rs.25.00 per day.”

6. It is evident from the said condition in the agreement that a licensee could not, by reason of being allowed to use such shop, acquire or be entitled to any right or interest whatsoever, save and except, enjoy or use the said building subject to the conditions of this agreement. The ninth condition postulated that if the license was not renewed, the licensee would be required to vacate the premises within 30 days of the expiry of the license at his own expense and if the licensee fails to vacate the building within thirty days from the expiry, the license committee shall be entitled to realize a penal charge @ Rs.25.00 per day.

7. The fact that said S. Manzoor Alam died in 1989, it appears, was not made known to the marketing committee. It is also an undisputed fact that allotment of shop was cancelled on 11.06.1999 by the Marketing Secretary, which was communicated through letter No. 3702 dated 11.06.1999, copy of which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-3 to the writ application. The reason, which was assigned in the said communication dated 11.06.1999 for cancellation of license was closure of business in the said shop and non-renewal of the license issued vide License No. 756/82-83. Further, despite repeated reminders, the arrears of rent was not paid. It is evident, on reading of the said communication dated 11.06.1999, that it was addressed to ‘S. Manzoor Alam’, who was no more on the date of its issuance, presumably because factum of his death was not communicated to the Marketing Committee.

8. It is the petitioner’s ca