Judgement SRIVASTAVA, J.:- This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India assails the notification dated 20-2-85 of the Hojai Municipal Board, hereafter referred as the Board, for enhancement of daily market toll with effect from 1-4-85 (Annexure 4) as rent of Rs. 60/- per month in lieu of daily market toll from the same date viz. 1-4-85 (Annexure 12). 2. The Hojai Fish Market Association is the petitioner No.1 and its President is the petitioner No.2. The petitioner No.1 represents 35 Vita holders of the aforesaid Hojai Fish market, hereafter referred as the market. 3. The petitioners case is that the members of the association conduct their business from premises constructed at their own cost, on vitas acquired from the then Hojai Town Committee in the market within the jurisdiction of the Board. Some of the members had acquired rights by transfer from the original vita holders. The vita holders who claim to be petty businessmen had been paying daily market toll at fifty paise per day per vita, which by the impugned notification was enhanced to Rs. 1 per day. Besides, by notice dated 27-6-85 the said levy was to be realised as monthly rent at Rs. 60/- per vita. The petitioners had sought relief by way of Civil Suit but it was withdrawn and an appeal to the Deputy Commissioner was filed. After it was disposed of, dissatisfied, the petitioners had come to this Court in Civil Rule No.619/85 wherein by order dated 30-7-85 the petitioners representation pending with the State Government was directed to be disposed of. The Government by order dated 16th September, 1985 disposed of the matter and approved the action taken by the Board imposing monthly rent which was however modified to Rs. 45/-per vita in lieu of daily toll with effect from 1-4-85. The petitioners have come to this Court. 4. The Government by order dated 16th September, 1985 disposed of the matter and approved the action taken by the Board imposing monthly rent which was however modified to Rs. 45/-per vita in lieu of daily toll with effect from 1-4-85. The petitioners have come to this Court. 4. Sri J. P. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the members of the petitioner association had been paying daily toll for doing their business from the vitas which they had acquired by paying valuable consideration whereon they had constructed their own premises and therefore the respondent Board could only levy toll, which could also be enhanced to reasonable rate, but by the impugned action, toll was converted into monthly rent which was beyond the competence of the Board that is that the Board had no power under the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 hereafter referred as the Act, to unilaterally change the nature of occupation of vitas which the petitioners had enjoyed. Sri J.P.Bhattacharjee, has also submitted that the enhancement from 0.50 p. per day to Rs. 1/- was excessive and unjustified. 5. The respondents have not filed any affidavit in opposition. but Sri B. P. Bora, learned counsel for the respondents, has submitted that under S.148(2) of the Act, the Board had powers to enhance the toll and also to alter the mode of its recovery from daily basis to monthly basis as rent. Sri Bora has cited L.C.Saikia versus North Lakhimpur Municipal Board, 1984 (2) GLR 412. 6. The questions which require consideration are firstly whether the Board has the power to alter the nature of levy from toll to rent and secondly whether the enhancement was not correct. 7. So far as the first question is concerned, in the absence of any affidavit in opposition, it may be accepted that the individual members of the association had acquired the vitas, had constructed their own premises from which they carried on-their business in the market and had until the dispute arose been paying toll on daily basis. The notice dated 27-6-85 stated that the vita rent was fixed at Rs. 60/-. One of the said notice was as follows - Annexure-XIII OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN HOJAI MUNICIPAL BOARD Ref. : No. HMB. 11-14/Pt. 11/85-86/ 1-49/ Dt. Hojai the 27-6-85. To, Shri Mon Mohan Das, Fish Market, Hojai. The notice dated 27-6-85 stated that the vita rent was fixed at Rs. 60/-. One of the said notice was as follows - Annexure-XIII OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN HOJAI MUNICIPAL BOARD Ref. : No. HMB. 11-14/Pt. 11/85-86/ 1-49/ Dt. Hojai the 27-6-85. To, Shri Mon Mohan Das, Fish Market, Hojai. Sub: Notice under Assam Municipal Act, 1956 regarding fixation and imposition of monthly rent on vitas situated in and around fish market. In order to augment the Govt. revenue, it is considered necessary to fix and impose monthly rent on vitas situated in and around Fish Market and accordingly in respect of your vita No.22 at Fish Market the following monthly rent has been fixed from 1-4-85. No. of Vita Vita Rent Rs. 60.00 x 1 (Single vita) Six 8-8X8" x68" Rs. 60.00 Less - As per order of Honble High Court Gauhati on the similar other case at Municipal Market vitas Present rent payable till final decision of the High Court, Gauhati on the above case. Rs. 45.00 Therefore, you are hereby requested to remit the rent fixed against your vita from 1-4-85, otherwise Municipal authority will be bound to realise the rent as per provision of Assam Municipal Act, 1956. Sd/- 27-6-85 Chairman, Hojai Municipal Board. The order of the Govt. dated 16th September, 1985 Annexure 16 on the representation of the petitioners also shows that the vita holders were to pay the monthly rent in lieu of vita toll with effect from 1-4-85. The final order was as follows: ORDER In view of above, the action of the Hojai Municipal Board in imposing monthly rent of Rs. 45/- per vita in lieu of daily toll with effect from 1-4-85 (by giving a relief of 25% of the monthly rent of Rs.60/- per vita as fixed) appears to be justified. The vita holders will, however, be liable to pay the balance amount if a similar case (Civil Rule No. 647/84-Misc. Case No.790 of 1984 pending in the Gauhati High Court) is decided in favour of the Municipal Board. Sd/- K.C.Majumdar, Secretary to the Govt. of Assam. The Board has, therefore, levied monthly rent on vitas. 8. The vita holders will, however, be liable to pay the balance amount if a similar case (Civil Rule No. 647/84-Misc. Case No.790 of 1984 pending in the Gauhati High Court) is decided in favour of the Municipal Board. Sd/- K.C.Majumdar, Secretary to the Govt. of Assam. The Board has, therefore, levied monthly rent on vitas. 8. Section 148(2) of the Act which is relevant is as under: " (2) The Board at a meeting may levy rents, tolls and fees at such rates as it may think proper for" the right to expose goods for sale." in a municipal market and for the use of shops, stalls and standings therein and also may regulate such rates in respect of private markets or places used or declared by the Board as a market place by public notice in the locality. It may be clear from sub-section, (2) above that the Board may levy rents tolls and fees at such rates as it may think proper also for the right to expose goods for sale. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that under the above provision the Board can levy only toll for the right to expose goods for sale and that no rent could be imposed for vita, or that the Board could not change the nature of the levy from toll to rent when the Board had not constructed the shop premises occupied by the members of the petitioners association and that the levy can be only for the right to expose goods for sale. 10. In Chamber 20th Century Dictionary, New Edition 1983 Rent means periodical payment for use of anothers property, specially house and lands and Toll means tax for the liberty of using a bridge or road, selling goods in a market etc. Generally speaking, rent means an agreed sum of money or other thing payable by the tenant for use and occupation of some property to the landlord and toll signifies payment in respect of some benefit, advantage or service generally for the use of anothers property. In a wider sense rent means any payment made for the use of land or buildings and thus includes the payment by a lessee in respect of the use and occupation of any land or building. In its narrow sense it means payment made by a tenant to the landlord for property demised to him. 11. In a wider sense rent means any payment made for the use of land or buildings and thus includes the payment by a lessee in respect of the use and occupation of any land or building. In its narrow sense it means payment made by a tenant to the landlord for property demised to him. 11. In our opinion, in the present case the essential nature of the levy remains the same, i.e. that the Board requires payment of a sum of money by the vita holders to carry on their business to expose their goods for sale on the property of the Board, i.e. the Hojai Fish Market, for the provisions of S.148 (2) of the Act, provide for levy of rent, tolls, also for the right to expose goods for sale in a municipal market. The Board has for reasons stated considered it necessary to make the levy on monthly basis instead of daily basis and in all probability because the levy is on monthly basis, termed it as rent. The expression " in lieu of toll" used in Government Order does not, in our opinion, mean that the levy was as rent for property demised i.e. the vita to its holders for there was no demise of any property i.e. of vita land. We think the expression in lieu of toll was just to emphasis that the nature of the levy was the same, i.e. that toll was not to be levied in addition to rent. We think that the expression rent has been used in rather its wider sense, for the levy, for exposure of goods for sale on the vitas. The change from daily to monthly basis therefore also does not change the nature of the levy. 12. It is true that the Government in Order dated 16-9-85 has used the words " monthly rent" in lieu of daily toll but it appears to have been used in wider sense of the meaning of word rent, because in the appeal/ representation Annexures 12 and 14 and in his communication dated 19th April, 1985 in reply to the petition dated 19-4-85 the Chairman of the Municipal Board had stated that the new rate of toll was to be paid. 13. 13. The Municipal Board in its communication dated 10-6-85 (Annexure 12) to the Government had informed that the Board in its meeting dated 7-6-85 had unanimously decided to bring the vitas situated at Fish Market under the direct management of Hojai Municipal Board from 1-4-84 fixing monthly rent. The Government in its order has approved the action taken with the modification that the monthly rent was reduced to Rs. 45/-. The vitas had been originally auctioned and occupied by the vita holders and they had raised their own construction thereon from which they carried on business and the constructions did not belong to the Board, yet, the respondent Board in our opinion under sub-section (2) of S.148 of the Act could levy rent for the right to expose goods for sale with reference to vita to facilitate collection and for purposes of accounts. We find no infirmity in the impugned action of the Board. We accordingly hold that the impugned notification being within the competence of the Board should not be considered invalid. 14. So far as the next question is concerned, the vita holders had been paying 0.50 p. per day as toll which was enhanced to Re. 1/- per day or Rs. 60/ - per month. We are unable to take the view that the enhancement should be considered exorbitant or excessive. The communication of the Chairman of the Board to the Government Annexure 12 and the order of the Government Annexure 16 have given fairly sound reasons for enhancement of the levy and for its alteration to monthly basis. The enhancement was considered justified in view of the increased expenditure in the establishment of the Board, and for the alteration in the mode of recovery from daily basis to monthly basis, it was stated that the vita holders kept their vitas closed very often so with a view to check and to ensure regular income, the Board had decided to bring the Fish Market under its direct management and fix the monthly rent. We think that the reasons given by the Board for the impugned action were sound and reasonable. It should not therefore be said that enhancement was exorbitant and unjustified. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no good or sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned action. The petition fails and is dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs. 16. Dr. It should not therefore be said that enhancement was exorbitant and unjustified. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no good or sufficient reason to interfere with the impugned action. The petition fails and is dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs. 16. Dr. SARAF, J. :- I agree. Petition dismissed.