one such allotment letter so far as the petitioner no. 1 is concerned is dated 17.12.2005. On a bare perusal of such allotment letters, it appears that a relationship of landlord and tenant would appear. However, at the same time, there is a clause which empowers the ASTC to issue vacation orders by which the allottee would be required to vacate the premises within a period of a month if the space is required by the ASTC for its own use. It is also not in dispute that in the year 2014 itself the arrangement was changed to be one under a license and accordingly license were issued to the petitioners, that too for a particular tenure. An examination of the license would show that the tenure was for a period of 3 years from 2014-2017 which was extended from time to time. That being the position, the present challenge has to be examined from the context of the license issued in the year 2014 as in the meantime almost a decade has passed and there was not even a semblance of challenge with regard to change of the arrangement in the meantime. The requirement of the land as an exchange with the NF Railway for creating a second entry point to the Guwahati Railway Station is undoubtedly for public purpose and the petitioners have also fairly conceded to this point. In view of the above, the argument made on behalf of the petitioners that they are tenants under the Act of 1972 is not acceptable. Further in view of the aforesaid change of arrangement, the contentions made that the petitioners can be treated as “tenants at sufferance” will not be applicable in the instant case. The only point which requires consideration is as to whether any alternative arrangement can be made so far as the petitioners are concerned. On a specific query, the learned AG has submitted that such consideration may not be possible as any such allotment has to be done from the open market and the petitioners had already got an advantage from running a business from the premises in
