(1.) The question which is posed for consideration by the Full Bench is whether, for the purpose of renewal of cinematograph licence, it is competent for the licensing authority to go into the question of 'lawful possession' of the cinema building as distinct from mere possession. As the view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 562/87 dated 23-4-1987 conflicts with the view expressed in a later judgment reported in Lakshmi Talkies vs. State of A.P., this matter has been referred to the Full Bench.
(2.) The writ petitioner took on lease the building owned by the 3rd respondent by means of a registered lease-deed dated 3-9-1976. The lease was for a period often years. The lease-deed contemplates extension of lease for a further period of five years at a rent mutually agreed upon. The stipulated rent for the first five years was Rs. 500/- and for the next five years it was Rs. 600/-. The petitioner asked for extension of lease. The lessor demanded higher rent to which the petitioner evidently did not agree. It may be seen that even the extended period of lease as per the lease-deed, had expired in September, 1991. After the expiry of the ten year-lease period, the3rd respondent sought for revocation of B-Form licence issued to the petitioner. The objection of the 3rd respondent was overruled by the Joint Collector, Nalgonda (the then licensing authority) by an order dated 9-5-1988 and this order was upheld by the Government in G.O. Rt. 386 (Home) dated 18-2-1991. Thereafter, the Asst. Collector, Bhongir renewed the B-Form licence for a period of one year from 1-1-1991 to 31-12-1991. There were representations against the renewal of licence and a writ petition - W.P. No.4308/91 was filed questioning the order of renewal dt.8-7-1991. Against the order in writ petition, Writ Appeal No.1110/91 was filed by the petitioner- tenant. The Division Bench of this Court (of which one of us - Lakshmana Rao, J. was a party) took note of the fact that the licence was about to expire within a few days and gave a direction that if the appellant (writ petitioner herein) seeks further renewal of B-Form licence, the same shall be considered and disposed of by the licensing authority in accordance with law and in the light of the decision of this Court in Lakshmi Talkies case (1 supra). The petitioner again applied for renewal of licence whereupon the 3rd respondent filed an objection petition before the licensing authority. The licensing authority viz., Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir by his order dated 18-4-1992, after hearing both the parties, declined to renew the licence on the ground that the petitioner was not in 'lawful possession' of the theatre. Against this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Government and the Government by its order in G.O. Rt. 3332, Home (General-A) Dept. dated 16-10-1992, confirmed the order of the licensing authority with an observation that the appellant was at liberty to approach the licensing authority for the grant of temporary licence. It is against this order, the present writ petition has been filed. It is not necessary to narrate the details regarding the pendency or disposal of the civil suits or rent control proceedings between the parties as we are not deciding this case finally.
(3.) When the writ petition came up before our learned brother Eswara Prasad, J. the learned Judge referred the matter to the Division Bench noticing "an apparent conflict between the Division Bench decisions of this Court in W. A. No. 562/87 and the decision reported in Lakshmi Talkiescase (1 supra) with regard to the question as to whether the applicant for renewal of the licence under the Cinematograph Act, 1952 should be in lawful possession of the theatre as a condition precedent." The reference to Cinematograph Act seems to be an inadvertent mistake inasmuch as the licence is to be granted or renewed under the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act and Rules. The Division Bench consisting of the learned Chief Justice and Bhaskar Rao, J. before whom the writ petition was posted, in turn, referred the matter to the Full Bench, while rejecting interim relief. That is how this writ petition was come up before us.