JUDGMENT : D. Dash, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Keonjhar in R.F.A. No. 22 of 2005 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Keonjhar in C.S. No. 04 of 2003 in dismissing the suit filed by the appellant as the plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arraigned in the court below. 2. The plaintiffs case is that he is in possession of the suit land belonging to the Municipality; having installed a cabin over the same and that he has been carrying on readymade garment business therein and thus earning his livelihood. It is stated that the defendant is collecting rent from him, although initially the cabin was installed without the permission from the defendant. His further case is that the defendant being interested to allot the land to some other persons purposely issued notice to the plaintiff to produce the original allotment order and as that was never passed, the plaintiff could not do so and then they have issued the notice for vacating the suit land. The plaintiff thus has filed-the-suit for permanent injunction against the defendant. The case of the defendant is that they desire to construct a shopping complex over the land in question and also over the other adjoining lands which has not been possible because of the unauthorized possession and litigation. It is further stated that the plaintiff has absolutely no right over the suit land and a suit for permanent injunction at the instance is not maintainable against the true owner. 3. The trial court has dismissed the suit recording specific finding that the plaintiff has no right over the suit land to continue in possession and thus to resist the move of the defendant in evicting him in accordance with law. The same having been affirmed in the appeal filed by the aggrieved plaintiff-appellant, the present appeal has been filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. The same having been affirmed in the appeal filed by the aggrieved plaintiff-appellant, the present appeal has been filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellant fairly submits that in view-of the concurrent finding of the courts below that the plaintiff has no right, title and interest over the suit and when admittedly the properly is own by the defendant to whom the plaintiff has been paying the license fee for the installation of cabin and running a readymade garments business therein, there surfaces no such substantial question of law. However, he next contends that the defendant when has the proposal of construction a shopping complex over the suit land and other adjoining lands, in view of the admitted case that the plaintiff has been earning his livelihood and maintaining the family by running a readymade garment business in the small cabin, it would be just and proper that the defendant should consider for allotment of one such shop room in favour of the plaintiff subject to his abiding all such terms and conditions by giving preferential treatment to him as it involves the question of his and his family members survival. Therefore, he prays for an observation of this Court in that light while in disposing the appeal. 5. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent fairly submits that in case of construction of the shop rooms over the suit land and other adjoining lands, if the plaintiff stands as an applicant seeking allotment of one of said rooms in his favour certainly in view of the facts and circumstances of this case that the defendant has been receiving rent room him for putting the cabin, there should appear no impediment in the way for the defendant for allotment of one such shop room provided of course the plaintiff agrees to abide by the terms and conditions as would be fixed by the defendant generally for all such allottees of the shop rooms which would be coming over there. 6. 6. In view of the aforesaid, this Court while being not inclined to admit the appeal finding no such substantial questions of law so as to be certified for the purpose, however feels it just and proper and in the interest of justice to record its observation that in the event, the defendant goes for construction of the shop rooms over the suit land, as also other adjoining lands, and if the plaintiff stands as an applicant seeking allotment of on shop room in his favour for running the business in earning his livelihood, he may be given the preferential treatment in the matter said allotment subject to his abiding the terms and conditions which would be fixed by the defendant. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No order as to cost is passed.