DODDA RANGA RAO Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR GUNTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions are disposed of by common order as the issues involved in both the writ petitions are the same.

(2.) The petitioner is the landlord of the cinema theatre Leela Mahal. On 16-4-1950 lease was granted in favour of the 3rd respondent at Rs.750.00 p.m. The landlord filed RCC No.58 of 1992 on the file of Prl. District Munsif-cum-Rent Controller, Guntur, for eviction of the 3rd respondent on the following grounds : (i) Wilful default in payment of rents ; (ii) sub-letting the premises; (iii) unauthorised additions to the building ; and (iv) Requirement of the building for bona fide personal occupation. The RCC was allowed by order dated 24-6-1996 and eviction was ordered. However, the 3rd respondent carried the matter in appeal in RCA 22 of 1996 on the file of Prl. Subordinate Judge, Guntur, and obtained stay of eviction on 13-6-1996 in IA No.2366 of 1996. The landlord made a representation dated 12-8-1996 to the 1st respondent not to grant any licence to the 3rd respondent under Rule 11-B(2) of the A.P. Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1970 (for short 'the Rules'). On 14-3-1997 the Joint Collector, R2 herein, issued proceedings reviewing the licence on the ground that the tenant obtained stay of eviction. It was also stated that the landlord can prefer an appeal against the said renewal. On 16-6-1997 the landlord made another representation to respondent No.2 stating that the stay was only a stay of execution of eviction and the eviction order has become final. On 30-9-1997 the landlord filed WP No.31887 of 1997 praying to declare the running of the cinema theatre as illegal. No interim order was issued. On 8-4-1998 the 2nd respondent wrote a letter renewing the licence for six months from 1-4-1998 to 31-10-1998. On 14-5-1998 the landlord-petitioner filed WP No. 14048 of 1998 to quash the proceedings of the 2nd respondent dated 8-4-1998. On 18-9-1998 temporary licence was issued to the 3rd respondent from 1-10-1998 to 31-3-1999, subject to the final order in the writ petition. The petitioner, therefore, filed WP MP No. 3959 of 1998 to quash the order dated 18-9-1998 renewing the licence from 1-10-1998 to 31-3-1999.

(3.) As far as Writ Petition 31887 of 1997 is concerned, this writ petition was filed challenging the order of the 2nd respondent renewing the licence to the 3rd respondent till 31-3-1998. Since that period has expired, the writ petition has become infructuous. WP No.31887 of 1997 is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous.