ISHERDAS SAHNI AND BROTHERS Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE LUCKNOW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition the petitioner firm, name ly, Isherdas Sahni and Brothers, seeks to get quashed by a writ in the nature of certiorari or like writ, order or direction, three orders contained in Annexures 13, 14 and 18 to the Writ Petition, the first and the third hav ing been passed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh impleaded as opposite party No. 2 and the second one by the District Magistrate of Lucknow (Oppo site party No. 1) acting as the licens ing authority under Section 4 of the U. P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955. It also seeks the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus to opposite party No. 1 aforesaid to grant to the peti tioner firm cinematograph licence for the Basant Cinema at Lucknow so long as it continues to enjoy the possession of the said cinema premises and com plies with all the formalities of Cine matograph Act and the rules. An inte rim relief in the form of grant of cinematograph licence was also prayed for but the same was not allowed and it was decided to hear the writ peti tion itself at a very early date. The facts and circumstances leading to the making of this writ petition are brief ly given hereinafter.

(2.) THE building, a part of which is known as Basant Cinema, was con structed by Sri Moti G. Thadani and Smt. Padma Thadani. A lease for the Basant Cinema was given by the said owners for a period of five years to the petitioner firm and a deed of lease was executed on 29-11-1947. Sri Amrit Lal Sahni, partner of the firm, took cinematograph licence for Basant Cinema and started exhibiting cinematograph films in the Basant Cinema. The lease was renewed from time to time, the last renewal being by means of a deed dated 5-12-1960, which was for a period ending on 31-5-1966. Sri Sahni of course got a renewal of the Cinemato graph licence from year to year. Dis putes arose between the landlords and the petitioner firm on the expiry of the period of lease on 31-5-1966. The lease covered also fittings and fixtures in the premises of Basant Cinema such as fans, electric boards and the air cooling plant. The landlords wanted the premises to be vacated and in fact Sri Moti G. Thadani made an applica tion to the District Magistrate Lucknow for the issue of a licence to him with effect from 1-6-1966. The firm on the other hand did not vacate the premises and continued in possession, though without the consent of the landlords and applied for rene wal of the licence. The renewal of the licence in favour of the petitioner firm in March, 1966 was only for two months ending on 31-5-1966. The District Magis trate later granted licence for a further period of three months commencing from 1-6-1966 and required the licen see to obtain a recognition of its rights in the cinema premises from an ap propriate court of law if it wanted renewal of licence for a further period. The petitioner firm therefore filed a suit on 3-7-1966 in the Civil Court at Lucknow for the declaration of rights in the premises and also seeking an injunction directing the landlords to restore and continue the supply of electric energy which had bee disconnected by the landlords. The firm also obtained an interim injunction In regard to the supply of electric energy which order however led to further litigation at higher level between the parties. The claim of the petitioner firm in the suit was that by reason of the pro visions of the U. P. (Temporary) Con trol of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947, which was applicable to the cinema premises leased out to it, the firm had a right to continue 'in possession even after the expiry of the period of lease fixed by the deed of lease. The land lords on the other hand also filed a suit on 27-7-1966 for the ejectment of the tenant firm on the ground that the provisions of the just mentioned Act did not apply to the premises and that, in any case, for eviction no permission of the District Magistrate under Sec tion 3 of the Act was required as the tenant firm had denied the title of the landlords and had caused substantial damage to the building. It may be stated that these two suits came to be decided by means of a common judg ment only on 30-11-1970. It was held by the court deciding the suits that the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act was applicable to the Basant Cinema premises and by rea son of that Act the tenant firm con tinued as a tenant on the expiry of the lease period on 31-5-1966 but that because of the denial of the title of the landlords by the tenant the land lords could sue to evict the tenant firm. The suit filed by the landlords for ejectment was accordingly decreed and the suit filed by the tenant firm was dismissed. The impugned orders had however been passed before the deci sion of the two suits in circumstances presently to be mentioned.

(3.) THE petitioner firm applied again for the renewal of licence for the year 1970-71 but was informed by the District Magistrate by means of an order dated 4-4-1970 (Annexure 9) that the licence had been renewed for one month ending on 30-4-1970. The firm wrote back to the District Magis trate giving facts and praying for re newal up to 31-3-1971. The District Magistrate sent some queries for be ing answered by the petitioner firm in view of another circular letter issued by the State Government on 4- 4-1970, being the impugned Annexure 13 to the writ petition, which letter was issued in super session of the earlier letter dated 25-5-1967 (Annexure 2 already mentioned) and avowedly upon a fresh consideration of the matter. On re ceipt of the reply of the petitioner firm (copy is Annexure 12) the District Magistrate passed the impugned order dated 27-4-1970 (Annexure 14) refusing to renew the licence after the expiry of its period on 30-4-1970. The peti tioner firm thereupon filed a writ peti tion (No. 478 of 1970) in this court on 29-4-1970 to get quashed the said order of the District Magistrate. The writ petition was admitted but the request for interim relief in the form of directing the District Magistrate to renew the licence was rejected. Thereupon, on the plea that a technical objection might be raised that the petitioner firm had filed the writ petition without taking recourse to the remedy pf appeal to the State Gov ernment against the order of the Dis trict Magistrate, the firm successfully applied for being permitted to with draw the writ petition with right to bring a fresh one if necessary. The petitioner firm then filed an appeal before the State Government but the same was rejected by order dated 16-10-1970. The order communicated to the petitioner firm is Annexure 18 to the writ petition. It will thus appear that Annexure 13, 14 and 18 which are sought to be quashed are" respectively the revised circular letter of the State Government dated 4-4-1970, the order of the District Magistrate refusing to renew the licence for the period com mencing on 1-5-1970 and the appellate order of the State Government con firming the order of the District Magis trate.