Honble SHETHNA, J.–Udaipur Swasthya Vibhag Sahakari Samiti Ltd. - petitioner, which is running a fair price shop in the hospital premises of General Hospital, Udaipur, has challenged in this petition the impugned notice dated 31.10.1996 at Annexure-19 calling upon it to vacate the premises and hand over the possession to the hospital on or before 30.11.1996. The petitioner is enjoying stay on a stay petition filed in this petition since 2.12.96 whereby the construction of newly `heart hospital has suffered a lot. The petitioner is one of those twelve other shopskeepers which are selling medicines in the hospital premises as stated by the learned counsel Mr. Ojha for the respondents at the bar. The petitioner claims to be a tenant but when asked, Mr.Lodha was unable to produce any lease -deed. It is true that the petitioner is also doing a loudable job of distributing medicines at a concessional price, but the purpose for which the petitioner was asked to vacate the shop and hand over the possession was more loudable than that of the petitioner. In the city like Udaipur, there is a dire need of the new heart hospital for which several lakhs of rupees were sanctioned out of which about Rs. 8 lakhs were received way back on 30.5.96 but because of the interim order passed way back on 2.12.96, the construction of the same could not be completed till today. (2). Apart from the fact that there is no legal right vested in the petitioner to continue the possession of the premises in question, there are several seriously disputed questions of facts also involved in this matter which cannot be gone into by this court. By way of further affidavit produced today by Mr. Lodha for the petitioner, it is pointed out that the proposal to allot an alternate premises is being actively considered. If that is so, well and good. If the authorities are satisfied,then they may allot an alternative premises to the petitioner but the petitioner cannot be allowed to continue at the spot even for a day considering urgency involved in the matter. (3). It may also be stated that the petitioner had been already provided alter- native shop by the P.H.E.D. department. Even Mr. Lodha stated that the petitioner has not been allotted one shop but two shops but at a distant place. (3). It may also be stated that the petitioner had been already provided alter- native shop by the P.H.E.D. department. Even Mr. Lodha stated that the petitioner has not been allotted one shop but two shops but at a distant place. The petitioner wants an alternative premises in the hospital itself. For that, the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right. Only recommendation can be made to the authority to consider the case of the petitioner for allotting suitable alternative accommodation to the petitioner. Mr. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that the authorities will sympathetically consider the case of the petitioner and try to allot the alternative premises as early as possible preferably within six months from today, provided the petitioner vacate the premises immediately. (4). In view of the above, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impug- ned notice at Annex.19 as I do not find any substance or merits in this petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Stay granted earlier on 2.11.1996 on the stay petition stands vacated, forth with. The petitioner shall vacate the premises and hand over the possession of the premises, forthwith.