HANUMAN VAHANA PANCHAPARVA KATTALAI ATTACHED TO SRI VENKATACHALAPATHI PERUMAL TEMPLE PULIVALAM Vs. B P SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REVISION petitioner Hanuman Vahana Panchaparva Kattalai of Sri Venkatachalapathi Perumal Temple, Pulivalam has leased out the suit property to the respondent for a period of 5 years under a registered lease deed dated 3. 3. 1987. The lease was determined by efflux of time, after issuance of notice under Sec. 106, C. P. C. the kattalai instituted o. S. No. 93 of 1992 in the Court of District Munsiff of Tiruvarur for recovery of possession and arrears of rent. It appears that on 2. 3. 1992 the Executive officer of the temple issued a notice to the parties herein through his lawyer setting up titles to the suit property in favour of the temple. The temple has also attacked the lease deed between the parties as unauthorised. So the present revision petitioner came forward with O. S. No. 74 of 1992 in the Court of subordinate Judge of Nagapattinam for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from running a touring cinema theatre in the suit property till he is evicted under due process of law alleging that the respondent in collusion with the Executive Officer of the temple is arranging to commence exhibition of cine films in the touring cinema theatre constructed by him in the suit property. The revision petitioner has also moved for a temporary injunction in i. A. No. 346 of 1992 and obtained an order directing the respondent not to exhibit cine film in the theatre located in the site till the disposal of the suit. The respondent took up the matter in appeal before learned District Judge of Nagapattinam in C. M. A. No. 42 of 1992. The appellate court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of learned District Munsif in I. A. No. 346 of 1992 and dismissed the same without costs. And the plaintiff challenges the said order in this revision petition.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that on the expiry of the lease on 3. 3. 1992 the possession of the respondent is not lawful. Since he has expressed his unequivocal intention of not continuing the lease after the period of tenancy is over, the respondent cannot be construed as a tenant by sufference also. From 4. 3. 1992 the respondent is not entitled to run the theatre. Under Cinematograph Act unless the respondent proves that he is in lawful possession of the site, he will not be entitled to get licence in his favour, and in support of his claim he has placed reliance of Rule 13 of the Rules under Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act 9 of 1955 which reads that if the applicant for the licence is not the owner of the site, he shall to the satisfaction of the licensing authority, produce documentary evidence to show that he is in lawful possession of the site, building and equipment. Since the respondent herein cannot be said to be in lawful possession of the site, he is not entitled to run cinema theatre there. He has also drawn the attention of the court to the decision of the Supreme Court in chockalingam v. Manickavasagam, (1974)2 M. L. J. (S. C.) 27: (1974)2 S. C. J. 30: a. I. R. 1974s. C. 104: (1974)1 S. C. C. 48. There it has been held that in the context of Rule 13of Madras Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957a tenant on the expiry of the lease cannot be said to continue in'lawful possession'of the property against the wishes of the landlord if such a possession is not otherwise statutorily protected under the law against even lawful eviction through court process, such as under the Rent Control Act. It is significant to note that the principal question that cause up for decision in the case cited is whether a tenant who is not a statutory tenant is entitled to claim to be in lawful possession of the premises on determination of the tenancy, on expiry of the lease in interpreting the above said Rule 13.