VINODA TALKIES Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE TUMKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is a partnership firm running cinema exhibition business under the name Vinoda Talkiesat Tiptur, Tumkur District. It has preferred this appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dated 28-5-1999 in substance directing the appellant to produce a valid lease agreement in respect of the site over which it is carrying on business, by 7-6-99 for the purpose of renewal and/or grant of cinema licence under the provisions of the Karnataka Cinema Regulations, Act, 1964 (The Act for short) and the Karnataka Cinema Regulation Rules, 1971 (The Rules for short ).

(2.) IT is not disputed that the premises over which the cinema business is being carried on belongs to Kalleswaraswamy Temple which is a Muzarai institution governed by the Karnataka Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927. The said premises was given on lease to the appellants under Government Order No. RD 44 MLI 70 dated 27-1-1971 for a period upto 16-1-1996. Based on the said lease hold right, the appellant obtained licence under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, but since it got the licence renewed for a period beyond the date of expiry of the lease, that is, upto 7-6-97, the District Magistrate, Tumkur, having learnt about the said fact of misrepresentation, cancelled the licence under his order dated 17-10-1996 (Annexure-H to the writ petition ). In the said order, while forwarding a copy to the Assistant Commissioner, he directed him to take possession of the premises. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred W. P. No. 29160/96 in which the impugned order has been passed. At the time of admission of the writ petition, an interim order was granted by this Court staying the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner whereby they had no existing licence in their favour enabling them to carry on their cinema business, but still continued the same. Rule 6 of the Rules reads as under :

(3.) FROM the above rule, it is clear that a person cannot the granted licence unless he produces documentary evidence in proof of his lawful possession of the site, building or equipment. In the case of M. C. Chockalingam v. Manickavasagam, AIR 1974 SC 104, while considering a similar provision regarding grant licence under the Madras Cinema Regulation Rules, 1957, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : (para 14)