M DHANALAKSHMI AMMAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Appeal has been filed against the order dated 21.7.1993 in W.P. No. 11779 of 1992 dismissing the same and confirming the order of the first respondent dated 27.7.1992 refusing to renew the ?C? Form licence for Sri Ganesh Theatre, Uthagamandalam, in the name of the appellant.

(2.) THE site in R.S. Nos. 1737 and 1738 measuring 1.151/2 acres and 1.561/2 acres respectively Uthagamandalam village belongs to the Jaffer Mohammed Sait Memorial Dispensary Charity (hereinafter referred to as the Charity), Uthagamandalam. On 3.12.1969 the above site was taken on lease for a period of ten years at the first instance by the following 4 persons, who were the partners or a firm: 1. Mrs. Dhanalakshmi Ammal (the appellant herein), 2. Mr. M. Sundararajan

(3.) MR. M.M. Bhojan (the 5th respondent herein) On the basis of no objection letters given by the other partners, a no objection certificate was issued in the name of the appellant to construct a permanent cinema theatre. Again, after getting necessary concurrence from the Wakf Board and MR. N.Y. Cassion Cait, the Muthavalli of the above Charity, leased out the above site on 28.4.1980 to the above mentioned four persons for the period up to 3.3.1990. The ?C? Form licence for running the theatre was also issued by the licensing authority third respondent herein in the name of the appellant and the said ?C? Form licence issued in the name of the appellant to run the theater was renewed up to 3.3.1990, i.e. till the validity of the lease period. On 8.3.1990 the appellant again applied for the renewal of the licence in her favour for a further period of one year. Respondents 4 and 5 presented a position dated 1.5.90 before the third respondent stating that the appellant and MR. M. Sundararajan have surrendered the site and building of the theatre on 3. 3.1990 to the Charity without the consent and without assessing the value of the movables in the theatre and that appellant is not in lawful possession of the site, building and equipment of the cinema theatre. Respondents 4 and 5 further requested the third respondent to suspend the running of the theatre until the matter is settled. The Licensing Authority, the third respondent herein, after hearing both the appellant and respondents 4 and 5 came to the conclusion that the request of the appellant for renewal of ?C? Form licence cannot be granted, in view of the objections raised by one of the original partners for the renewal or the ?C? Form licence and consequently the third respondent by order dated 9.7.90 directed the appellant and the objectors to settle the dispute in a civil court with regard to the ownership and other claims for renewal of?C? Form licence. Aggrieved by the above said order of the third respondent, the appellant filed an appeal to the second respondent, who by the order dated 2.4.91 dismissed the appeal. As against the order of the second respondent, the appellant filed a revision petition before7 the first respondent. The first respondent, found that the appellant was not able to establish her lawful possession of the site, building and equipment in the cinema theatre as stipulated under R. 13 of the Tamil Nadu Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and consequently, by the order dated 27.7.1992 the first respondent dismissed the revision petition. In the above circumstances, the appellant filed W.P. 11779/92 before this Court, challenging the orders of respondents 1 to 3, refusing to renew the ?C? Form licence in her favour. The learned single judge, who heard the writ petition accepted the reasons given by respondents 1 to 3 for refusing to renew the ?C? Form licence in favour of the appellant and consequently dismissed the writ petition. As already stated, this writ appeal is directed against the order of the learned single judge, dismissing th said writ petition. 3. Before us, MR. A.S. Raman, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had fully satisfied the requirement of R. 13 of the Rules, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Krishna Kishore Firm v. Government of A.P. & others AIR 1990 S.C. 2292. The learned counsel for the appellant relying on the agreement dated 30.9.1980 entered into between the appellant, respondents 4 and 5 and others, further contended that the appellant is in possession of the equipment and other movables in the cinema theatre pursuant to the said agreement dated 30.9.1980, that as per the terms of the said agreement, the appellant is entitled to an undivided share in the equipment and movables in the theatre and that respondents 4 and 5 along with on e Joghee are entitled to the other half share in the equipment and movables in the theatre, that the appellant having undivided interest in the equipment and movables was put in exclusive possession of the same, that her possession of the equipment and movables in the theatre cannot be considered as litigious or unlawful and that therefore, the orders of respondents 1 to 3 and the learned single judge refusing to renew the ?C? Form licence on the ground that appellants possession of equipment and movables is not lawful is illegal and liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, MR. Palpandian, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 submitted that, factually, there was no surrender of the site and superstructure by the appellant to the Charity and that the partnership between the appellant, respondents 4 and 5 and others has not been dissolved. Relying on the decision in Champaran Cane Concern v. State of Bihar, AIR 1963 S.C. 1737, the learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 further submitted that all the partners are equally entitled to the rights and ownership of the land, building and equipment, etc., as per the agreement of lease, that the partnership is still subsisting and that the appellant cannot be said to be in lawful possession of the site, building and equipment. The learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5 again contended relying on Ss. 46, 47 and 53 of the Partnership Act, that till the accounts are settled, the partnership continues and that the disputes relating to the firm have got to be decided only by a civil court.