SUSHILA NARENDRAJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts leading up t the present petition under Article 226 o the Constitution lie in a narrow compas Smt. Sushila Narendrajit Singh (Petitioner No. 1) owns the premises known as Vivek Cinema at 14/151, Mahatma Gandhi Mara Chunniganj, Kanpur and Direndrajit Pinga (petitioner No. 2) is the son of petitioner No. 1. The premises (Vivek Cinema) was given on lease to M/s. Rakesh Theatres (respondent No. 3), which is a partnership firm of which Virumal Dembla (respondent No. 4) is the Managing Partner. Manohar Lal Dudeja (respondent No. 5) is another partner of the firm. The lease was grant ed on 1st July, 1955, in the first instance for a term of five years with an option to the lessee of renewal of the lease for an other five years. The lessee obtained a licence from the District Magistrate, Kan-pur, who is the Licensing Authority under the U. P. Cinemas (Regulations) Act, 1955 (U. P. Act of 1956 - hereinafter referred to as the U. P. Act) for giving exhibitions by means of cinematographs, and the licence was renewed from year to year.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioners, respondent No. 3 availed of the option ol the renewal of the lease of the premises, and thus the lease expired on 30th June, 1965. Thereafter the lease became a lease from month to month. Petitioner No. 1 terminated the lease by giving one month's notice dated 24th February, 1971 under Section 106, Transfer of Property Act. The notice was served on res pondent No. 3 through its Managing Part ner (respondent No. 4) on 26th February, 1971. So, after the termination of the period of notice Messrs. Rakesh Theatres were in unlawful possession of the premises in question from 26th March, 1971.

(3.) THE grievance of the petition ers is that the licensing authority, without affording any opportunity to them In con travention of the statutory requirements renewed the licence in favour of respon dent No. 3 under the influence of the G.O. dated 29th March, 1971 (sic) is ultra vires the Act and the rules framed thereunder. It is also urged that no order has been passed on the petitioners' application for the issue of licence in their favour.