RAMALINGA RAJU Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lakshmi Theatre of Bhimavaram, West Godavari District was constructed by one Sanyasayya His wife is Suramma. Sanyasavya mortgaged the said cinema hall on 5-7-1972 in favour of Smt. Tummalappalli Sakuntalamma of Attili Village and also took a loan of Rs. 35,000/ Sakunta1amma failed a suit in the Subordinate Judge's Court. Narasapur on the foot of the mortgage deed and also another suit on the foot of the promissory note executed by Sanyasapya and got order of attachment against the theatre in the month of April, 1974 Sanyasayya died on 1-12-1976 leaving behind him his wife, Suramma, six sons and five daughters. Suramma got the BForm Licence transferred in her name in the month of June 1977 One of the sons died on 9-12-1977 leaving behind him his widow, two sons and three daughters. One Ch. Ramalinga Raju obtained a letter date 14-11-77 under which Suramma agreed to lease out the theatre to him f r a period five years and Suramma delivered possession of the theatre to him and since then he has been running the theatre Ramalingaraju was paying the agreed rent to Suramma and also was discharging the debts due from her. Ultimately by an agreement dated. 30-6-1978 Suramina got the half share in the theatre transferred to Ramalinga Raju for a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs and an advance of Rs. 15,000/- was paid under the said agreement. Besides this amount he paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ to her debtors. But the sale deed was not executed for the half share in the theatre inspite of requests. As the Licence was standing in the name of Suramma, he found it difficult to run the thearte and hence filed an application in November, 1981 before the Joint Collector, West Godavari Eluru under Rule 11 (e) of the A.P. Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1970 hereinafter will be referred to as the Rules, for transfer of the licence in Form -B in his name. The Assistant Collector, Narsapur was asked to enquire in to the Petition after notice to Suramma. The Assistant Collector submitted his report stating that Suramma and her sons had admitted that Ramalingaraju was the lessee of the theatre under the rental of Rs. 48,000/- per annum and Ramalmguraju has been running theatre since November, 1977 as a lessee. The Joint Collector, Eluru, held ultimately that Ramalingaraju was a lessee and he was in lawful possession of the theatre and hence the licence should be transferred in his name under Rule 11 (e) of the Rules. Aggrieved with that order dated 12-4-1981 Suram ma filed an appeal before the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The Government by its order dated 30-10-1981 dismissed the appeal. As against that order Suramma filed W.P.NO. 9284 of 1981. The learned single Judge by his order dated 28-4-1981 remanded the matter to the Covernment for disposal of the appeal afresh in accordance with law and also in the light of the observations made in the Judgment. The Government heard the arguments once again and allowed the appeal of Suramma under orders in G.O. Rt NO.2698 dated 22-9-1982. In the said order the Government held that Ramalingarajus' possession cannot be said to be lawful but it is only litigious. In the meanwhile the Collector stopped the shows from 29-8-1982 and handed over the possession of the theatre to Suramma and her sons on 22-9-82. Then Ramalingaraju filed W.P.NO.6882 of 1982 for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order in G.O.Rt. No.2698 dated 22-9-1982. Along with the writ petition he filed a petition for the grant of stay. This Court passed orders on 30-9-1982 granting stay.On the receipt of the orders passed by this Court the Collector again passed orders on 1-10-1982 directing restoration of possession of the theatre in favour of Ramalingaraju. Our learned brother Ramarao, J., after hearing the arguments deliverey the judgment on 3-12-1982, and held that rule 11 (e) of the Rules stipulates that the person seeking a licence should be in lawful possession of the premises if he is not the Owner. The learned single Judge held that on the expiry of the lease, the tenant, who is not statutorily protected, cannot be held to be in lawful possession of the property and hence Ramalingarajus possession cannot beheld to be lawful subsequent 13-11-1982 when the lease expired and the licencing authority has no authority to renew the licence from 14-11-82 to 11-10-83 So holding the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Having not been satisfied with the order of the learned single Judge in WP No.68 82 of 1982 Ramalingaraju prefrred WA No. 1059 of 1982 Along with the write Appeal he fild WAMP No 1798 /82 on 7-12-82. In the mean while Ramalingaraju also filed OSN. 97 of 1982 for specific performanace of the agreement of sale said to have been executed by Suramma in this favour He also filed along with the suit TA No 732 of 1982 paying for an injunction Interim injunction was granted on 8-11-9182 On the basis of order passed in I A No 732 of 1982 granting injunction, this Court granted interim order in W A M P No 1798 of 1982 to the following effect "there shall be status quo and the petitioner will continue to run the theatre pending further orders and nothing said herein shall, however, preclude the third respondent from taking steps to file a petition for vacating the injunction and the learned Subordinate Judee from considering the same on its own merit'". Later the Subordinate Judge vacated the injunction granted in I A No732 of 1982. Against that order Ramalingaraju filed CMA No 57 of 1982 in this Court on 31-1-1983 along with CMP No 940 of 1983. Our learned brother Ganga- dharRaoJ. pased interim orders on 1-2-83 to the effect that status quo as to possesion as on to day shall continue until further orders. Post this CM A. for final disposal alone with WA No 1059/82" Then Suramma and her sons filed C M P No 1299 of 1983 requesting this Court to vacate the order of status quo passed in CM P No 940 of 1983 on 1-2-1983 Our learned brother Sardar Ali Khan, J. passed orders on 22-2-1983 in CMP NO. 1299 of 1983 to the effect "interim order of status quo is made absolute on condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs. 50,000- and also a sum of Rs. 2,000/- per mensem towards the future with effect from 30-11-1982 to the date of this order, within four weeks fr om to-day. The respondents shall be at liberty to withdraw the same on furnishing third Party security to the satisfaction of the Subordinate Judge, Bhimavaram. The rents payable from the date of this order shall be paid on or before the 15th of every month. Post the C. M. A. along with the Writ Appeal No. 1059 of 1982 for final hearing." Against the orders in C. M. P. No. 1299 of 1983 dated 22-2-1983 Letters Patent Appeal No. 36 of 1983 is filed bv Suramma and her sons. Without admitting this L.P.A. it is ordered on 30-3-1983 that it should be posted along with W.A.No. 1509 of 1982 and C.M.A.NO. 57 of 1983.

(2.) Thus the Writ Appeal, C.M.A. and the L.P.A. came up for hearing. For convenience sake the parties will be referred to as arrayed in the Writ Appeal.

(3.) Sri R. Venugopal Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant, contends that the learned Subordinate Judge was not correct in holding that the appellant's possession of the theatre from 14-11-1982 is unlawful, as he was having a licence, which was to expire by 30-4-1983. We do not think that this contention is sustainable.