Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Lakshmi Talkies vs State Of A.P. And Others on 10 August, 1990
Equivalent citations: AIR1991AP170, AIR 1991 ANDHRA PRADESH 170, (1990) 2 APLJ 217 (1990) 3 ANDH LT 78, (1990) 3 ANDH LT 78
ORDER
N.D. Patnaik J.
1. This writ appeal is filed against the order of the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 17641 of 1986. The brief facts which are relevant in so far as the appeal is concerned are as follows: The appellant is a lessee of cinema theatre called 'Lakshmi Theatre'in Rajahmundry. Respondents 3 and 4 and some others are the owners of the theatre. The petitioner has taken it on lease for a period of five years from 1960 and it was renewed from time to time and ultimately it expired on 30-7-1983. The licence for running the cinema hall was also transferred in the name of the appellant in the year 1960 and on application for renewal the licence was being renewed till 31-5-1985.
2. An eviction petition was filed by the 3rd respondent herein against the appellant under the Rent Control Act (Act XV of 1960) for eviction from the theatre. But it was withdrawn and a suit was filed in the year 1987 and it is also pending. An application was filed in the suit for appointment of Receiver and when a receiver is appointed the appellant filed an appeal CMA No. 1822 of 1989 in this Court and obtained stay of the order and the same is still pending. On the representation made by respondents 3 and 4 to the Joint Collector, Kakinada, the Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry issued a show cause notice to the appellant to which the appellant sent a reply stating inter alia that the tenancy is protected by the Rent Control Act (Act XV of 1960). On 1-4-1985 the licencing authority passed the orders revoking the licence. It is challenged in a writ petition in this Court. It is not necessary to state all the proceedings that arose between the appellant and respondents 3 and 4 for purpose of this appeal, since the question involved in this writ appeal pertains to renewal of licence after 31-5-1985.
3. On the application filed by the appellant for renewal of the licence, the Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry after hearing all the parties concerned passed an order stating that the lessee is not in lawful possession of the building (theatre) and equipment therein and accordingly rejected the application filed by the appellant for renewal of licence. He further directed him to stop exhibition of films immediately in the theatre. The appellant preferred an appeal to the Government against the said order of the Sub-Collector. By G.O.Ms. No. 2056 Home (Genl. A) Dt. 20-11-1986 the Government confirmed the order of the Sub Collector and advised the appellant to settle the disputes in a Court of law. Questioning the said order of the Government the appellant filed the writ petition No. 17641 of 1986.
4. The contention of the petitioner (appellant) is that after the amendment made to the A.P. Cinema (Regulation) Rules and in view of Rules 12-A and 12-B of the said Rules it is not open to the licencing authority to enquire whether the appellant is in lawful possession of the theatre, because the rule does not provide for the same. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that by the time the amended rules came into force on 31-12-1983 the lease had expired by 30-7-1983 itself and so the amended rules do not apply. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that by the date of applying for renewal the amended rules have come into force and so the application for renewal has to be dealt with only on the basis of the amended rules. We agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant on that aspect; but we would consider whether the licencing authority and the Government are justified in refusing renewal in accordance with the amended rules.
5. Prior to amendment, R. 11 of the said Rules dealt with the application for grant of licence and for renewal of licence. Clause (e) of the said Rule provided that the application shall be accompanied by necessary records and certified copies thereof relating to the ownership or possession of the site, building and equipment, if he is himself the owner or those relating to his lawful possession thereof if he is not the owner. R. 12 provided that on receipt of the reports and certified copies referred to in Clause (e), if the licencing authority is satisfied that the applicant is in lawful possession of the site, building and equipment, he shall within 10 days from the date of receipt of the above certified copies and reports accord or renew the licence. Therefore, according to the said rule both at the time of granting the licence and at the time of renewing the licence the applicant had to satisfy the licencing authority that he is either owner of the premises or in lawful possession thereof. On 31-12-1983 the Rules were amended. Now R. 11-A deals with applications for grant of licence and R. 11-B provides for grant of licence to cinema buildings. R. 12-A deals with applications for renewal of licence and 12-B deals with renewal of licences to cinema theatres. Therefore the Rules 11-A and 11-B deal with grant of licence and Rules 12-A and 12-B deal with renewal of licence. As far as grant of licence is concerned R. 11-B says that if the licencing authority is satisfied that the applicant is in lawful possession of the site, building and equipment he can grant the licence subject to other conditions mentioned in the Act. R. 12-A which deals with the applications for renewal of licence says that the application shall be accompanied by certificates relating to longivity of the building issued by the Executive Engineer (R & B) and the certificate of validity of the electrical and fire certificate issued by Electrical Inspector. R. 12-B provides that if the application is in order and the electrical and fire certificate and if the certificate of longivity of the building issued by Executive Engineer are valid the licence may be renewed for the period applied for. It is therefore contended that for renewal of licence it is not necessary for the licencing authority to safisfy himself that the applicant is in lawful possession and hence the licencing authority cannot refuse to renew the licence on that ground.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon three decisions rendered by three learned single Judges of this Court in support of his contention. In the case reported in Sri Vani Movie Tone v. R. D. O. Chandra-giri, 1986 (2) ALT SN 92. Justice Syed Shah Mohd. Quadri has pointed out that "the requirement of production of document in support of lawful possession contained in R. 11(e) does not find place in the substituted Rules i.e., R. 12-A and R. 12-B which deal with the renewal of licence or for grant of lease for fresh period. Therefore the impugned order of the licencing authority dehors R. 11(e) cannot be sustained. The licencing authority is bound to dispose of the application with reference to requirements prescribed under Rules 12-A and 12-B and not with reference to R. 11(e) which had already been deleted or with reference to the conditions contained in R. 11-B. "To the same effect are the decisions of Mohd. Sardar Ali Khan, J., in Oriental Touring Talkies, Dasukuppam v. Asst. Collector Chandragiri, 1987 (2) ALT SN 82 and the decision of K. Ramaswamy, J., (as he then was) in M. Kameswara Somaya-julu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1987-(1) APLJ SN 82.
7. While the decisions rendered by Justice Sardar Ali Khan and Justice Ramaswamy (as he then was) referred to above only considered the difference between the old rule and the amended rule regarding renewal of licence, Justice Syed Shah Mohd. Quadri had also considered the effect of second proviso to Rule 12-B in addition to the difference between the old rule and the amended rule regarding the requirement of lawful possession. The second proviso to R. 12-B says "provided that if the licencing authority is satisfied that the provisions of these rules have not been fulfilled he may refuse to grant the renewal applied for and communicate to the applicant the reasons for such refusal. Justice Syed Shah Mohd. Quadri held that the phrase "the provisions of these rules" in the second proviso to R. 12-B refers only to Rr. 12-A and 12-B as the provisions under R. 12-B are self contained and exhaustive and deals with renewal of licence. The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the said, proviso refers only to the rules regarding the rules contained in 12-B but does not refer to other provisions of A.P. Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1970.
7A. R. 12-A prescribes the mode of application for renewal of licence and the documents to be filed along with the application. R. 12-B(1) says that within fifteen days of receipt of such application, the licensing authority shall (a) if the application is not in accordance with the rules, dispose it of in accordance with cl. (a) of sub-r. (1) of R. 9(b); (b) if the application is in order the electrical and fire certificate is valid and if the certificate of longivity of the building initially issued by the concerned Executive Engineer (R & B) is valid for the period for which the renewal of licence is applied for, the licence may be renewed for the period applied for. Sub-r. (a) of R. 9-B says that if the application is not in accordance with the rules return the same to the applicant for re-submission within a period of sixty days failing which the application shall be treated as rejected and fresh application shall be made.
8. So under R. 12-B, sub-r. (1) two courses are open when an application is made for renewal. One is that the licensing authority can return it if it is not in accordance with the rules and secondly if it is in accordance with the rules to renew the licence. The second proviso to R. 12-B which is referred to above further says that if the licensing authority is satisfied that the provisions of the rules have not been fulfilled, he may refuse to grant the renewal applied for. This obviously is in addition to the right of the licensing authority either to return the application if it is not in order or grant the licence if it is in order. This proviso will be redundant if it is confined only to the rules contained in R. 12-B. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the view taken by Justice Syed Shah Mohd. Quadri in the decision referred to above or the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the expression "provisions of these rules in second proviso refers only to the Rules in 12-A and 12-B and not the other rules contained in A.P. Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1970. A reading of that proviso in the context of the other provisions of R. 12-B shows that the licensing authority may refuse to grant renewal if he is satisfied that the provisions of other rules in the A.P. Cinema (Regulation) Rules have not been fulfilled.
9. In the instant case, as respondents 3 and 4 have made an objection that since the appellant is not in lawful possession of the cinema theatre as the lease has expired, the licencing authority i.e., Sub-Collector, Rajahmundry had to consider that objection. R, 11-B which is the rule for grant of licence, says that the licencing authority should be satisfied that the applicant is in lawful possession of the site, building and equipment before granting licence. So in order to obtain the licence for running a cinema theatre the applicant must be in lawful possession of the site, building and equipment. Renewal of licence is only a continuation of licence. The amended Rules 12-A and 12-B did not prescribe that at the time of renewal also the applicant should satisfy the licensing authority that he is in lawful possession because he was granted licence on the basis that he is in lawful possession and at every time of renewal it is not necessary to have the cumbersome inquiry regarding the lawful possession. But when an objection is raised by two of the owners of the theatre, the licencing authority i.e., the Sub-Collector had to make an inquiry and satisfy himself whether the provisions of other rules are complied with. After hearing both the parties, he came to the conclusion that the appellant is not in lawful possession of the threatre or the equipment and therefore refused to renew the licence. This he is entitled to do within the scope of second proviso to R. 12-B of the Rules. We may clarify that this inquiry was done by the licensing authority only for the limited purpose i.e., renewal of licence or its refusal. It does not in any way affect the rights of the parties in civil litigation. The Government on appeal have confirmed the order of the licensing authority i.e., the Sub-Collector and advised the appellant to establish his right in the Civil Court.
10. We do not, therefore, find any illegality either in the order of the licensing authority or the appellate authority. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Advocate's fee Rs.250/-.
11. Sri V. Venkataramaiah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant makes an oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We are however not convinced that the case involves any substantial question of law or importance requiring decision of the Supreme Court. Leave asked for is refused.
12. Appeal dismissed.