K AYESHA BEGUM Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner, the proprietrix of Anna Touring Talkies, Vairavikulam, Tirunelveli District, who lost before the learned Single Judge, has filed the above appeal against the order dated 19.8.1997 in W.P.No.5919 of 1988. THE said writ petition was filed seeking for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for and quash the proceedings of the first respondent State Government made in G.O.Rt.No.1449 Home (Cinemas-I) Dept., dated 20.4.1988, whereunder the Government. While concurring with the orders of the Appellate Authority as well as that of the licensing Authority rejected the claim of the appellant for renewal of a "C" Form Licence for a third term after the expiry of the renewal earlier granted till 19.12.1986. THE Licensing authority viz., the District Collector of Tirunelveli District, by his proceedings dated 27.6.1987 rejected the application for renewal taking into account the bad antecedents in the matter of running of the THEatre not only in the form of selling tickets without the seal of the Department, but also for running the theatre by exhibiting film without the required licence therefor on 29.10.1986. As a matter of fact, criminal prosecutions were pending in respect of some such incidents and she has also compounded an offence by paying the compounding fee for committing violation of Rules by selling unsealed tickets. An appeal filed by the appellant before the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Administration, THE Appellate Authority also was rejected after an elaborate and exhaustive consideration of all the materials. Not satisfied, the appellant pursued the matter on further revision. Though initially the revision was entertained and interim orders were granted, subsequently the revision also came to be dismissed on the ground that the appellant was guilty of defalcations and violations of serious nature and grave magnitude. THE relevant materials and instances forming the basis of such antecedents have been also noticed by the revisional authority elaborately.

(2.) THEREUPON, the appellant filed W.P.No.5919 of 1988 as noticed earlier, while the writ petition was pending, the owner of the land on which the touring talkies in question is located and with whom initially there was a lease agreement with the appellant, which has expired, got impleaded as a party-respondent to the writ petition and he also objected to the relief being granted in favour of the appellant on the ground that there is no valid lease in favour of the appellant and he cannot be said to satisfy the requirements of law, particularly the provisions of Rule 13(1) of Tamil Nadu Cinema (Regulations) Rules, 1957 (Hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The coming up of a new theatre within the prohibited distance was also urged as a ground based on violation of Rule 14(2) of the Rules.

(3.) IN Sri Hanuman Vahana Panchaparva Kattalai Attached to Sri Venkatachalapathi Perumal Temples v. Subramanian, (1994)2 M.L.J. 239, a learned single Judge of this Court seems to have taken the view that a tenant, who overstays after the expiry of the lease period, cannot be considered to be in unlawful possession. But, at the same time, the learned Judge made it clear that even in such a situation, Rule 13, if satisfied, will be entitled to renewal. IN our view, the decision of the learned single Judge proceeds upon an erroneous understanding of not only the principles laid down by the Apex Court as to the scope of Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Cinema (Regulations) Rules, 1957, but also the categorical principles laid down by the Apex Court in the two decisions noticed supra. May be the learned single Judge's view could be justified because of the absence of any positive objection by the owner of the site, unlike in the present case. If the decision of the learned single Judge is to be considered to have laid down any general principle of universal application, the same cannot be considered to be in conformity with the law laid down by the Apex Court and for that reason cannot be approved by us. The relevant rule makes it clear that even at the time of renewal, the applicant has to satisfy the authorities that the site of the building continued to conform to the relevant rules and this would postulate the necessity for compliance with Rule 13 even at the stage of renewal also. So far as the case on hand is concerned, the learned single Judge has noticed the fact that the owner of the site has also filed a suit for recovery of possession apart from the suit filed by the appellant to protect her possession and the rents also appear to have been paid without prejudice to the rights of parties. IN such a case, the possession would only be not a lawful possession, but a litigious possession not conforming to the requirements of Rule 13 as held by the Apex Court.