CHITRA EXHIBITORS REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS AND OTHERS Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND N. SRINIVAS S/O LATE C.R. NARAYANASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a writ of prohibition. The core question which fells for consideration is, in what circumstances, a writ of prohibition can be issued.

(2.) THE facts germane for the disposal of the writ petition are as under: The petitioners claim to be the registered owners in occupation and possession of Vani Theatre along with fixtures. The said theatre is situated in Chickballapur Town. They are running feature films in the name of M/s. Chitra Exhibitors, which consists of four partners. It is not in dispute that the second respondent was a lessee under the petitioners. It is also not in dispute that the lease period came to an end on 02.11.2002. Since the lease had expired, the petitioners have filed a suit in O.S. No. 164/03 before the competent Civil Court for ejectment and the same is pending adjudication. In the meanwhile, the second respondent has filed a suit for enforcement of an alleged agreement to sell stated to have been executed by the first petitioner i.e., one of the partners of the firm. The said suit is pending adjudication. The second respondent, it appears, had filed a suit in O.S. No. 267/02 seeking relief of injunction restraining the petitioners from dispossessing him without due process of law. Incidentally the subject matter of the suit for injunction is the theatre in question. The learned trial Judge decreed the suit as against which the petitioners filed an appeal which was also dismissed. As against the said findings, the petitioners are before this Court in RSA 396/08. When both, the petitioners as well as the second respondent are at loggerheads and are before the Civil Court, respondent No. 2 makes an application for renewal of licence for running of cinema theatre before the first respondent. The said application for grant of licence was opposed by the petitioners on innumerable grounds. It was submitted before the first respondent that the licence is in the name of M/s. Chitra Exhibitors. Hence, the question of second respondent seeking renewal or grant of fresh licence would not arise. They would specifically refer to the relevant provisions of Karnataka Cinema Regulation Act. The first respondent set down the points for determination, one of them being whether the second respondent was in lawful possession. For the reasons set out in the order, the first respondent has accepted the petition and granted the licence. The same was questioned by the petitioners by way of an appeal in appeal No. 114/08 before Appellate Tribunal. The appeal was accepted by the Tribunal and the order of the first respondent was set at naught. A finding is recorded by the Tribunal in the said proceedings to the effect that the second respondent was not in lawful possession, inasmuch as, once the tenancy is terminated, the second respondent would be a tenant at sufferance. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the second respondent filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P. No. 14991/08. This Court declined to entertain the said writ petition. The second respondent, aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge, filed an appeal in W.A. No. 2299/08. Incidentally, the said writ appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on the ground of it having become infructuous.

(3.) MR . Raghavendra Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently submits that it is an imminent case where a writ of prohibition is required to be issued, inasmuch as, the second respondent has suffered an adverse order at the hands of the Tribunal which is confirmed by the learned single Judge in a writ petition as well as by a Division Bench of this Court in a writ appeal. He further submits that the lawful possession has been dealt extensively by the Tribunal. He submits that once the tenancy is terminated, the occupant's possession would not be lawful, but it would be a tenancy at sufferance. He further submits with reference to the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Calcutta Discount Company Limited Vs. Income -tax Officer, Companies District, I and Another, AIR 1961 SC 372 to buttress his contention as to in what circumstances a writ of prohibition would be issued by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submits that a writ of prohibition is somewhat akin to the abuse of the process of jurisdiction. Hence having regard to the positive finding recorded in the earlier proceedings, another application on identical facts for identical relief could not have been entertained by the first respondent.