MADURA TALKIES PVT LTD Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR MADURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THREE writ petitions were filed by the appellant, madura Talkies Private Limited all relating to the grant of'c'form licence for running the cinema theatre, and for various reliefs, which were disposed of by S. S. Subramani, J. by a common order dated 29. 4. 1998. W. P. No. 1170 of 1998 was filed for a writ of certiorified mandamus to quash the proceedings of the Collector, Madurai District, dated 30. 12. 1997 and to direct him to consider the application for the renewal of'c'form licence issued in favour of the petitioner. W. P. No. 3514 of 1998 was directed against the grant of'e'form licence which was granted for restricted period between 1. 3. 1998 and 24. 3. 1998. The present appeal has been filed against the order in w. P. No. 4193 of 1998 wherein the appellant had prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the first respondent, District collector, Madurai, dated 21. 3. 1998 in so far as it restricted the period of'c form licence only up to 24. 3. 1998 and to enable the petitioner/theatre to function up to the expiry of the period of the certificate issued by the Chief electrical Inspector, to the appellant.

(2.) ACCORDING to the appellant, it was a company registered under the Companies Act owning a permanent theatre known as New cinema in Madurai . The land on which the theatre is located belongs to the second respondent and others. The land was leased to the appellant in the year 1935 under a registered lease deed for putting up a cinema theatre. After taking over the property on lease the appellant had put up buildings to run a cinema, erected machinery, furniture, fittings etc. and have been running the cinema theatre since then. Theatre has also been duly licensed under the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act and Rules thereunder. The lease was granted to the appellant in the year 1935 and renewed from time to time by registered deeds up to 1990. From 1990 the lease had been renewed in favour of the appellant under unregistered lease deeds. The last of the renewal was executed in April, 1997 renewing the lease up to 24. 3. 1998. Since they have put up the construction in the land, the appellants were entitled to the benefits under the City Tenants protection Act. The last of the'c'form licence was granted up to 31. 10. 1997 and the appellant made an application under for renewal of'c form licence under Rule 92 of the Tamil Nadu Cinema Regulations Rules after enclosing all the necessary and relevant documents as required under the said rule. Even though the application was made within the prescribed time and all the requirements are complied with, the first respondent Collector, kept the renewal of the application pending and was issuing only'e'form permit under rule 97 from month to month. While granting'e'form permit for the period from 1. 3. 1998 to 24. 3. 1998 the appellant was informed that since the lease was coming to an end on 24. 3. 1998, the renewal would be granted only if they produce registered lease deed in respect of the land for the period beyond 24. 3. 1998. Since the order was contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu cinemas (Regulation) Act and the appellant was in lawful possession of the site, there was no warrant for the first respondent to pass an order. The appellant had therefore, filed a writ petition in W. P. No. 3514 of 1998 questioning the said order. This Court had ordered notice to the respondents. While matters stood thus the District Collector, Madurai, passed an order on 21. 3. 1998 on the appellant's application for renewal, restricting the period of renewal up to 24. 3. 1998, on the ground that the lease of land was up to 24. 3. 1998. Therefore, according to the appellant, the restriction of the period of'c' form licence up to 24. 3. 1998 was irregular and without jurisdiction. The reasons contained in the order as confirmed by the Joint Commissioner of Land administration, were illegal and contrary to law. The authorities failed to see that in view of the fact that the appellant was entitled to the benefits of the tamil Nadu City Tenants Protection Act, even after the efflux of time after the lapse of period of lease, they were in lawful possession of the property and were entitled to the renewal. The appellant is the owner of the building, equipment, furniture etc. and they are also the lessees of the land from the year 1935 and therefore, they were in lawful possession of the theatre.

(3.) THOUGH learned counsel for the appellant had cited several judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court, in a bid to substantiate his contention that the appellant's possession was legal, it would be sufficient to refer only to the latest judgment of the Supreme Court which holds the field reported in R. V. Bhupal Prasad v. State ofa. P. , 1995 (5)S. C. C. 698. After considering the previous rulings on the subject the Supreme court had held that where the site was taken on lease by the licensee, continuance in possession by him even after the expiry of the lease period in contravention of the terms of the lease and there was no acquiescence by lessor. such possession was not lawful possession as there was no landlord and tenant relationship. The Supreme Court made a distinction between the tenant holding over and tenant at sufferance and had held that the tenant at sufferance cannot be held to be continuing in lawful possession of the property. It was held as follows: In view of the settled position law, the possession of the law, the possession of the appellant is as tenant as 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 until he is rejected 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 licensing authority was right in holding that the lessee was not entitled to renewal after the expiry of the lease period.