MANGAL BHASKARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records of the second respondent in Na.Ka.19791/2006/C1 and quash the order dated 31.05.2006 passed therein and further direct the second respondent to renew the licence of the petitioner and issue "C" Form to the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Cinema (Regulations) Act, 1955.)Mr.A.Edwin, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.

(2.) THE writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31.05.2006, by which the second respondent declined to receive the "C" Form licence in his favour on the ground that he is not a tenant in lawful possession.

(3.) IN (1995) 5 SCC 698 (Supra), the matter arose under the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, which is almost identical to the Tamil Nadu Rules. The Supreme Court in that case, held that:"IN view of the settled position of law, the possession of the appellant is as tenant at sufferance and is liable to ejectment in due course of law. But his possession is not legal nor lawful. IN other words, his possession of the theatre is unlawful or litigious possession. The appellant may remain in possession until he is ejected in due course in execution of the decree in the suit filed by the respondent. His possession cannot be considered to be settled possession. He is akin to a trespasser, though initially he had lawful entry."Therefore, the fact that until the landlord takes steps to evict him by due process of law, he continues in possession is not relevant. It is also seen from the impugned order that the landlord namely, the Mutt had objected to the grant of licence.