1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he was allotted Stall Rooms bearing No.1 & 8 by the OP at Town Hall Complex, Jeypore vide Council Resolution No.64 dt.30.05.1992 with monthly rent of Rs.100/- per month for each stall and he had installed a printing press in the said stalls from the year, 2000 and continued his business till 2014.  It is submitted that the OP issued demand notice on 25.09.2014 for the outstanding rent amount of Rs.60, 820/- which is excess amount of Rs.27, 720/- to the actual calculation amount and on his approach the OP has not considered the matter.  Thus alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to assess the outstanding rent amount, allow further stall rooms in his favour and to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation and cost to the complainant.

2.                     The OP filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the complainant is a licensee in respect of two stall rooms and he defaulted payment of licensee fees of Rs.60, 820/- as he is a chronic defaulter.  It is contended that the complainant is no more a licensee w.e.f. Sept., 2014 and the case of the complainant is not maintainable under law since devoid of merits.  With these and other contentions, denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     In this case, Stall Room No.1 & 8 allotted on lease by the OP in favour of the complainant on 30.05.1992 and taking possession of stalls by the complainant from 04/1994 are all admitted facts.  It is seen that the OP has fixed rent for those stalls from time to time and has furnished the details of license fees amounting to Rs.60, 820/- which was to be paid by the complainant but he has not paid the said fees.  The case of the complainant is that the OP has demanded excess amount of Rs.27, 720/- through its demand notice No.2542 dt.25.9.2014 which is illegal and unfair.

4.                     The OP furnishing the details of rent in its counter pending against the complainant challenged the maintainability of this case.  The complainant has not filed any paper in order to prove his case that the OP has demanded more amount than that of actual one.  The OP stated that the allocation of stall rooms was made on 30.05.1992 and they have fixed rent from April, 1994 and they have furnished calculation sheet from 04/1994 but the complainant has not furnished the calculation of its own.   In the above circumstances before going into other merits of the case, we are inclined to decide the maintainability of this case.  It is a settled principle of law that, an allottee of Government accommodation under the statutory rules on payment of license fees is not a consumer who has hired services for consideration for said accommodation.  In this case the complainant has availed the accommodations on payment of license fees to the OP and in view of above settled principle of law, the complainant is not a consumer of the OP and hence this case is not maintainable under the Act which deserves dismissal.

5.                     In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)