JUDGEMENT

          Complainant by filing this complaint has alleged that ops are the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Authorities who are owning College Street Market, now under reconstruction and it is presently running the market temporarily at Marcus Square Moidan, Kolkata-700007 under Jorasanko P.S. where the complainant is a stall holder and he is sheltered temporarily at Stall No.C-27 as provided to him, awaiting to be rehabilitated as a stall holder at his permanent Stall No.B-43 of College Street Market Building, after construction.

          Originally complainant’s father Late Sudeb Cnahdra Samui was recorded Stall Holder of Stall No. B (P)-43 and complainant’s name was mutated as the next successor stall holder thereof when fresh measurements were taken for assessing and computing new rate of rents at Rs.0.43 paise per sq. ft. from the date of death of his preceding stall holder on 11.06.1972.  When excess area of his said stall was recorded as having excess area of 35.25 sq. ft. which was merged with the originally existing stall of 34.12 sq. ft.  Thus the stall area since then recorded as 69.37 sq. ft. by the order of the Special D.C.(B) dated 11.11.1982 and was further regularized and confirmed by his order dated 15.01.1983.  Thus the original stall No. B (P)-43 stands comprised of total area of 69.37 sq. ft. (34.12 + 35.25), when the total rent was reassessed and charged at 0.70 paise per sq. ft. which was subsequently enchanced by 25% to be @ 0.88 per sq. ft. with retrospective effect from the date of death of the previous stall holder being the complainant’s father on 11.06.1972 which were regularly paid by the complainant retrospectively since then as directed for the entire aforesaid area of the stall.

          While accepting and paying in full the total rents for the said stall areas according to above rentals computed for 69.37 sq. ft., the Corporation’s stall rent-receipt of the said stall however bears a wrong measurement having only 33 sq. ft. only against money being received for the entire assessed aforesaid rent for the total 69.37 sq. ft. of stall area.  Complainant made protest, lastly through his Advocate’s letters but op in spite of being the authority to maintain computerized data for printing in the Rent Receipts a full measurement for the said area.

          Complainant submitted that it was outrageously wrong to take larger amount of money as rents of a larger sq. ft. area bur recording smaller sq. ft. area and refusing to rectify the error which is completely a negligent and deficient manner of service and complainant again and again reported to the op to rectify the same but they did not intend to rectify for which complainant has preferred this complaint for redressal to rectify the measurement area of the stall to the extent of 69.37 sq. ft. in place of 37 sq. ft. and also for compensation etc.

          On the other hand op Calcutta Municipal Authority by filing written statement submitted that complaint is barred by limitation is the cause of action he was asked by the KMC by a letter dated 17.01.1983 address to him that the parties shall have to pay appropriate rent excess area 35.25 sq. ft. @ 0.01 paise per sq. ft. per day and same shall be merged with the rent of stall which was existing and it would be fixed @ 0.70 paise and same to be charged with effect from 11.06.1973 but the party will not claim the excess area in the redeveloped market as per policy decision of the K.M.C.

          No doubt complainant had paid balance initial rent amount of Rs.54/90 as well as difference of rent during the period from 11.06.1973 to 30.06.1984 amounting to Rs.1921.04 on being asked by the KMC by its letter dated 17.01.1983 vide Rent Sheet No.1637 dated 17.07.1984.  Complainant thereby had agreed the terms and conditions as imposed by the K.M.C. and he would not claim for the excess area in the redeveloped market as per policy decision of K.M.C.  Moreover complainant is a licensee of the stall No. B-43 College Street Market and occupying stall No. C-27 of Marcur Square Market temporarily and complainant cannot be treated as a consumer as per definition of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and he cannot claim any right as a consumer and his claim has to be rejected.

          Moreover the licensee or a permit holder or a tenant may ventilate his/her grievances before a Civil Court of Law and they can pray for relief before the Civil Court of Law.  But there is no relationship of consumer and service provider in between the parties.  Further the entire complaint is vexatious and for which it shall be stood dismissed.

                                                   Decision with reasons

          After hearing the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and also considering the present relationship in between the complainant and the op, it is clear that the complainant is a licensee.  Fact remains the other stall is under construction and at thje time of renovation the extending licessee (tenants) has been shjfted to Marcur Square temporarily and invariably after construction they shall be replaced in the new building of College Street Market.  No doubt it is a dispute in between the licensee and licensor and as per provision of T.P. Act it shall be guided u/s 105 of T.P. Act.  So the relationship in between the complainant and the KMC is an existing relationship like land lord and tenant and the present dispute is related to fixation of rent in respect of the newly constructed shop room of the College Street Market and regarding such dispute no doubt the licensee is guided by the terms and conditions of the KMC rules and regulations and as per KMC Act anyway the licensee or tenant cannot claim as consumer under the land lord or the licensor.

          When that is the position then it is clear that the present complainant is no way a consumer in the eye of law under op KMC authority and for which the present complaint is not tenable in the eye of law because it is the provision of law that before entering into the dispute in between the both parties in a complaint it must be proved at first that complainant is a consumer if that status is not found in that case there is no other alternative but to dismiss the complaint.

          In the present case complainant’s status is licensee under the KMC but he is not a consumer under the op and for which we are convinced to hold that the present complaint is not maintainable as complainant’s status as consumer is not at all substantiated.  In view of the fact he is mere a tenant (licensee) under the op.

          Accordingly the complaint fails.

          Hence, it is

                                                             ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost against the ops.