PHILOMINA Vs. EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER's husband and two others had been permitted to use fifteen cents of land belonging to the second respondent in, Sy. No. 97/6/2/2 of Varapuzha Village , for running a theatre. That was in the year 1979. Subsequently the petitioner's husband acquired the rights of his partners and became the sole proprietor of the theatre. After the death of the husband in March, 1983, the petitioner was running the theatre. It is admitted that the relationship between the petitioner and the second respondent is that of licensee and licensor (vida para 5 of O. P. ). PETITIONER states that a theatre was accordingly put up with a total investment of Rs. 2,12,000/ -. The licence agreement was from year to year in the first instance. The latest agreement (a copy of which has been produced by the second respondent as Ext. R2 (a)) was however, only for a period of eleven months, expiring on 30 IM986.

(2.) THE licence agreement Ext. R2 (a) permits the petitioner and her son to exihibit cinematograph films in the theatre in the property described take away the materials and the machineries therein and to vacate the premises without raising any objection at the expiry of eleven months from January 1,1986. It is also stated that possession of the property in question continued to be with its owner, the second respondent.

(3.) AFTER receipt of Ext. R2 (b), the petitioner had written to the first respondent oo 24-11-1986 pointing out that the land-owner-second respondent was not agreeable to continue the licence in her favour for conducting the cinema theatre, that she was indebted, that she will incur heavy loss in case the exhibition of films was stopped, and hence praying that she may be allowed to continue the theatre for some more time after 1-12-1986. This letter is seen in the files of the first respondent. Simultaneously she also filed petition Ext. P2 before the Revenue Divisional officer, namely the 3rd respondent, requesting him to give necessary directions to the licensing authority to renew the licence in her favour. The grounds stated in this petition were that it was impossible to remove the theatre building in a short time without alternate sites being obtained, that the land-owner did not require the site for her own 'needs' and that the petitioner was in lawful possession of the site and hence entitled to renewal of the licence under "rule 17". She supplemented this petition with a further representation Ext. P3, in which she stated that she bad, acting upon the licence, executed work of a permanent character and incurred expenses therefor, and therefore the licence was irrevocable, under S. 60 (b) of the indian Easements Act, 1882. She also stated that she continued to be in possession of the site, of which she had come into possession lawfully. She produced in support a statement purporting to be details of the investments made in the theatre and also a certificate from the Assistant Executive engineer, Buildings Sub Division, Alwaye giving a description of the theatre.