K. KUPPUSAMY GOUNDER Vs. THE BOARD OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE AND FOOD PRODUCTION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner in these petitions filed an application, dated 8th December 1966 before the Collector of Tiruchirappalli for renewal of the C form licence for the year 1967 for running a cinema, Ambika Talkies, Karur. The Collector by order dated 10th November 1967 refused the renewal of the licence. The appeal of the Petitioner was dismissed by the Commissioner of Land Revenue and Food Production, by order, dated 8th April 1968. The writ petitions have been filed against the said order, -dated 8th April 1968 confirming the order of 10th November 1967. One is for the issue of a writ of certiorari to cancel the orders. The other is for a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to renew the C form licence in favour of the Petitioner. The main question involved in the petitions is whether as claimed by the Petitioner he is entitled to the benefit of the Madras Buildings (Lease and Bent Control) Act, XVIII of 1960, (referred to hereinafter as the Buildings Control Act of 1960) and claim that he is entitled to continue as a tenant under the statute, notwithstanding the termination of the lease in his favour by the owners of the building represented before us by the third Respondent, Venkata -subbayya Chettiar. He is the sole contesting Respondent before us, the Commissioner and the Collector being the first and the second Respondents.

(2.) It is common ground that when the lease was current, it was evidenced by two lease deeds, dated 9th May 1961 and 9th June 1961. The lease of 9th May 1961 was for a period of one year from 10th April 1961 and was in respect of the building as such and stipulated for a rent of Rs. 700 per month. It recites that the cinema projector and the connected machinery installed therein and belonging to the Petitioner (lessee) should be security for the due payment of the rent. The second lease deed, dated 9th June 1961 was also for the same period of one year from 10th April 1961 and was in respect of the furniture, fixtures and other equipment mentioned in the deed, worth in all Rs. 15,000 and the stipulated rent was Rs. 300 per month. The articles which are mentioned are benches, back -benches, chairs, sofas, cushioned chairs, electric fans, exhaust, electric fans, electric wiring, iron switches, electric light switches, main line connection, wiring to the projector in the cabin room, sound room and ceiling sheets, and other movables. At the end there is a recital that the fire extinguisher, the municipal water connection and sanitary fittings were also included in the description of movables. The parties are also agreed that, though there were two separate deeds, they together formed one transaction. In fact, the counter affidavit of the third Respondent states that the transaction was put in the form of two different agreements only for the purpose of municipal assessments and other tax purposes and exhibiting a lower rate of rent for the building as such.

(3.) It is also common ground that C form licences were issued from year to year upto the end of 1966. The third Respondent issued a notice, dated 24th July 1967 terminating the lease, but the Petitioner contended before the authorities that nevertheless he was entitled to continue as tenant under the Buildings Control Act, 1960. The order of the Collector shows that this contention was opposed by the lessors on the ground that the lease was a composite lease in that it included not merely the buildings as defined under the Act, but something more and that, therefore, the Act could not be invoked at all by the Petitioner. This contention was supported by the citation of the decision of a Bench of this Court (Rajamannar C. J., and Basheer Ahmed Sayeed J.) in Writ Appeal Nos. 151 and 160 to 162 of 1959, reported as Om Prakash v/s. Commissioner of Police, I.L.R. (1960) Mad. 490. The Collector accepted this contention and hence refused the renewal of the licence. The Commissioner of Land Revenue based his order on the ground that after 9th April 1962 the Petitioner had not taken any action to get the lease renewed, that his possession could not, therefore, be considered as lawful, that the case was on all fours with those disposed of by the High Court in the writ appeals mentioned above and that, therefore, the Collector was justified in declining to grant the renewal.