D RANGA RAO Vs. DT 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/- p.m. The landlord filed R.C.C. No. 58/1992 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 R.C.C. was allowed by order dt. 24-6-1996 and eviction was ordered. However, the 3rd respondent carried the matter in appeal in R.C.A. 22/96 on the file of Prl. Subordinate Judge, Guntur, and obtained stay of eviction on 13-6-1996 in I.A.No. 2366/96. 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- Cinemas (Regulation)Rules,1970(for short 'the Rules'). On 14-3-1997 the Joint Collector, R-2 herein, issued proceedings reviewing (sic. renewing) 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 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 W.P.No. 31887/97 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 W.P.No. 14048/98 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 W.P.M.P.No. 3959/98 to quash the order dt. 18-9-1998 renewing the licence from 1-10-1998 to 31-3-1999.

(3.) As far as Writ Petition No.31887/97 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. W.P.No. 31887/97 is, therefore, dismissed as infrucruous.