N VENUGOPAL Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's father M. Narayanaswamy was the owner of the property bearing Survey No. 18/5 of Diwanara Palya, Mathikere village, Bangalore North Taluk, presently within the Bangalore City Corporation limits. He let out a portion of the said property measuring of 100 ft. x 150 ft. for the purpose of running a touring cinema to one Syed Noorulla initially in the year 1983, later renewed as per 'Badige Karar' dated 30-3-1987 for a period of three years i.e., from 1-4-1987 to 31-3-1990. The said Syed Noorulla continued in possession even after 31-3-1990. He died on 14-11-1990 and respondents 2 to 4 are his legal heirs (two sons and wife). M. Narayanaswamy died on 14-3-1992 and the petitioner is one of his legal heirs. Respondents 2 to 4 claimed that on the death of Syed Noorulla, they became the tenants and they filed a suit on 21-3-1991 in O.S.No. 1824 of 1991 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore for a permanent injunction restraining M. Narayanaswamy from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the said property. It appears within a few days after filing of the said suit, the existing touring cinema theatre building was burnt down in a fire accident and now what remains is a vacant land with a small structure. On 7-6-1991 an interim order of temporary injunction was granted in O.S.No. 1824 of 1991 restraining M. Narayanaswamy from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property till the disposal of the suit. M. Narayanaswamy filed an appeal before this court in M.F.A. 2371 of 1991 against the said order of temporary injunction. The said appeal was dismissed on 29-1-1992 subject to the condition that plaintiffs shall pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- per month for the period commencing from 1-1-1992. Respondents 2 to 4 are thus in possession of the property.

(2.) On 23-2-1989 a 'No Objection Certificate' was granted under Rules 28, 105(3) and 111-B of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') for conversion of the existing touring talkies knows as Sri Krishna Chitramandira in the said property into a semi - perm en ent cinema on an application dated 18-5-1987 filed by Syed Noorulla. It was not so converted. Again on an application filed by Syed Noorulla on 28-6-1990, another No Objection Certificate dated 12-10-1990 was issued by the first respondent under Rule 109(2) of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation)(Amendment) Rules, 1990 to Syed Noorullah for conversion of the existing touring cinema into a temporary cinema. Again on an application dated 6-8-1991 filed by Respondent No. 4, another No Objection Certificate dated 29-4-1992 was issued under Rule 109(2) of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) (Amendment) Rules, 1990 to fourth respondent for conversion of the existing touring cinema into temporary cinema. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the said No Objection Certificate dated 29-4-1992.

(3.) The petitioner contends that the property was permitted to be used by Syed Noorulla on leave and licence basis till 31-3-1990; that even assuming without conceding that the property was let out to him, the said tenancy came to an end on 31-3-1990; that Respondents 2 to 4 are not in lawful possession of the premises but are in litigious possession in pursuance of the interim injunction dated 7-6- 1991; that there is no structure in the property that could be used as a cinema threatre and the respondents could not construct any structure without the express written consent of the owner; that the owner had objected to the grant of No Objection Certificate and therefore first respondent could not have issued a No Objection Certificate to the fourth respondent.