ARUMUGA SELVI Vs. ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Smt. Arumuga Selvi, the lessee running a canteen in Shanthi Kamala Theatre (Ganesh Theatre Complex) at No. 78/3. Abraham Pandithar Road, Thanjavur. The petitioner entered into an agreement dated 27-2-1982 with the management of Shanti Kamala Theatre to run the canteen for selling eatables, Cigarettes, drinks, coffee, ice-cream etc. The petitioner alleges that she started the said business after availing loan from Syndicate Bank, Tanjore. Even though the agreement was entered into on 27-2-1982, the business could be commenced only on 14-4-1984, after the opening of the theatre subsequent to its construction. The petitioner is a lessee for four stalls, but what was actually leased out was only a vacant hall. The petitioner has put in several fittings at a considerable cost to facilitate the running of the business. Several machineries like refrigerator, ice-cream, plant; pop-corn machine, besides furniture and tools were used in the premises for running the canteen. It is also stated in the petition that the lease had been renewed several times orally and finally it was so renewed during June, 1988 for a further period of one year. The petitioner accordingly has taken licence from the local authorities for running the canteen business for 1988-89 (pages 1 to 3 of the typed papers) and has also insured the stalls to the tune of Rs. 5 Iakhs with New India Assurance Company for the period ending 17-6-1989. The policy has been filed as a document in page 4 of the typed papers filed along with the petition. The petitioner further states in her petition that only at the inception of the tenancy, the lease was in writing and the perio4 covered was 11 months, but subsequently it has been renewed orally. That it must be true is proved positively by the petitioner- continuing in possession till her signature was obtained in a memo at the Police Station on 1-1- 1989.

(2.) It is also seen that on 12-12-1988, the Management of the theatre gave a police to the petitioner directing her to remove the materials from the canteen premises before 31-12-1988. The petitioner has sent a reply to the said notice on 28-12-1988. it is in this background that when, the petitioner went to the place of business on 31-12-88, she was told by the theatre management that the canteen should be vacated by the mid - night of 31-12-88, as otherwise all the materials would be thrown out. The petitioner thereafter requested the first respondent, who is the Additional Superintendent of Police (Town) Thanjavur, to give police protection to run the business on 31-12- 1988 and 1-1-1989 since both days were holidays, and there was no scope for her to obtain order from court. The petitioner could not meet the first respondent on 31-12-1988 as he was on leave. However, she met the first respondent on 1-1-1989 and gave a petition for police protection. After submitting the petition to the first respondent, the petitioner along with her husband and other employees went to the theatre for opening the stalls, as usual, since there was a morning show round about at 10 a.m. The management virtually prevented the petitioners group from entering the theatre. It is stated in the petition that against at around 10.30 a.m. the petitioner and her husband met the Superintendent of Police with a copy of petition already given to the first respondent. The Superintendent of Police directed the petitioner and her husband to meet the second respondent at the office of the second respondent for appropriate relief. Accordlingly the petitioner along with her husband Sivaganana Sambandam met the second respondent and. submitted a copy of the petition already preferred to the first respondent, at around 12 noon.

(3.) The second respondent summoned the Manager of Shanthi Kamala Theatre for conducting an enquiry. The second respondent appears to have held an enquiry and according to the petitioner, he was about to pass an order in her favour It is at or about that time, according to the petitioner, the first respondent came to the office of the second respondent and told the petitioner that she cannot run the business, and the business will have to be run by the theatre management. itself. On the directions of the first respondent the second respondent drafted a memorandum which when translated into English runs as follows: Office of the Inspector, Thanjavur East, Today, after enquiring into the petitions given by T. Ramadas, Manager of Thanjavur Shanti Kamala Theatre and P. Arnmugha Selvi, who runs the canteen in the theatre, the following conclusions were arrived at: (1) Though the petitioner was ready and willing to have the lease renewed, the management of the theatre was not willing to renew the lease. Therefore, from 1st Jan., 1989, the second party (referring to the petitioner herein), should not enter the theatre until she obtains orders from the court (This clause states that it was so ordained, obviously by the Police Officer). (2) All the articles in the four shops and the shops themselves which had been leased out to the petitioner would be under the control of the theatre management till the court order was obtained. (3) Regarding the dispute, both parties should not, indulge themselves in creating a breach of peace affecting the public and public transport system. The signatures of both parties have been obtained in this document. After the signatures, an endorsement is made that Enquired and the above decision was taken, before both the parties and they agreed to the same. This has been signed by the Inspector of Police, who is the second respondent. After this endorsement, there is another endorsement in Tamil, which reads that the petitioner objects to Clause (2) of the agreement regarding her right, being a lessee or a licensee, which has to be decided by the court.