Heard Mr. B Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of the respondents despite the names of the counsel reflected in the cause list. 2. Praying for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside and quashing the impugned notices dated 30.10.2004, 5.11.2004 and 17.11.2004 (Annexure-II, III & IV respectively to the writ petition) the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner’s case in brief is that the petitioner’s father was a tenant of one Sri Sukumar Sutradhar (respondent No.4) for last 3/4 decades. The petitioner’s father took the business premise on rent in the year 1969 and since then he got repaired the shop premise from his own money as per instruction of the landlord. But from the year 2003 when the shop premise needed to be repaired, the owner of the premise did not allow the petitioner’s father to get the same repaired. Instead of repeated requests, the landlord did not repair the shop and therefore, the petitioner had to repair the same from his own pocket. There is a committee to look after the well being of the people doing business in the vicinity of Margherita Town, namely Margherita Bazar Committee. When the owner of the building refused to get repaired the shop premises the said Bazar Committee suggested the petitioner not to pay the monthly rent for the time being until the matter was settled by the owner of the shop premises with regard to repairing of the same and accordingly, as per advice of the said committee, the petitioner did not pay the amount so spent alongwith the rent which culminated default of payment of rent. When the matter rested as thus the petitioner received a notice dated 30.10.2004 issued in favour of the father of the petitioner by the Chairman of the Margherita Town Committee whereby and whereunder it was informed that the respondent No.4 has filed a complaint regarding occupation of his building by the father of the petitioner and also asked to vacate the premises for last one year but the petitioner’s father did not vacate the same and hence, the petitioner’s father was asked to attend the office of the Margherita Town Committee at 11-30 AM on 5.11.2004. As the petitioner’s father could not attend the office, the petitioner on behalf of him attended the office on the date so fixed and discussed the matter with the official. After such discussion the petitioner met respondent No.4 and due rent of the shop premises was given to the respondent No.4. However, he refused to accept the same. The Town Committee has again issued another notice dated 5.11.2004 asking the petitioner to attend the office on 8.11.2004. Accordingly, the petitioner attended the office and apprised the entire facts of the case to the Chairman of the Town Committee. Ultimately, vide notice dated 17.11.2004 the Chairman of the Town Committee directed the petitioner to hand over the shop premises within 24.11.2004 to the respondent No.4 on the ground that the petitioner has violated the order of the Town Committee by not attending the officer on 17.11.2004 as directed. 4. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Margherita Town Committee has no jurisdiction over the matter to issue such notice, inasmuch as, the dispute is between the petitioner and the respondent No.4 which is the dispute between the landlord and the tenant, more particularly, relating to eviction from the premises for default in payment of rent is to be decided by the forum as prescribed under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 and therefore, submitted Mr. Goswami that the impugned notices are liable to be set aside and quashed. 5. Though none appeared on behalf of the respondent, I have gone through the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent No.3, i.e. the Chairman of the Margherita Town Committee wherein it has been stated on oath at para 8 to the effect that the Margherita Town Committee has no jurisdiction over the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.4 as the same is being civil in nature. Para 8 and 11 of the affidavit-in-opposition are quoted hereunder: “8. That with regard to the statements made in the paragraph 6 this deponent stated that she does not deny the fact that the Margherita Town Committee have no jurisdiction over the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.4 and she also agree with the fact that the matter is of civil nature. That with regard to the statements made in the paragraph 6 this deponent stated that she does not deny the fact that the Margherita Town Committee have no jurisdiction over the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.4 and she also agree with the fact that the matter is of civil nature. She served notice upon the petitioner asking him to attend her office so that matter can be solved on discussion to avoid any further consequences for the public in general and the parties to the dispute in particular. 11. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 9 this deponent states that as earlier stated she has no objection if the matter is solved by a civil court and the deponent states that the Margherita Town Committee’s interference was for stopping any kind of untoward incidents in the area within its jurisdiction.” 6. In view of the provisions under the Act, 1972 as well as the specific statements made by the respondent No.3 as quoted hereinabove, the Town Committee having no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices, the same are not sustainable in law and thus, this Court deems it fit and proper to quash the notices which I hereby do. Accordingly, the notices dated 30.10.2004, 5.11.2004 and 17.11.2004 (Annexure-II, III & IV respectively to the writ petition) are hereby set aside and quashed. The interim order passed earlier is made absolute. 7. The writ petition is allowed. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. _____________