Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.LAKSHMANA RAO, P.L.N.SHARMA, P.VENKATRAMA REDDY
Y.Anasuya - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 03-03-93
CINEMATOGRAPH ACT - RULES - RENEWAL OF LICENCE - LAWFUL POSSESSION - RELEVANCE - INTERPRETATION OF RULES - DISCRETION OF LICENSING AUTHORITY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a lessee of a cinema building, applied for renewal of his license under the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 (the Act) and the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970 (the Rules). The licensing authority refused to renew the license on the ground that the petitioner was not in lawful possession of the theatre. The petitioner challenged this decision, arguing that under Rule 12-B of the Rules, the applicant need not satisfy the licensing authority about his lawful possession.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the licensing authority can refuse to renew the license in the absence of proof of lawful possession. The Court interpreted Rule 12-B of the Rules and found that it does not dispense with the need to go into the question of lawful possession at the time of renewal. The Court also held that lawful possession is a relevant consideration that could be legitimately taken into account by the licensing authority in the matter of renewal of license.
Issues: Whether the licensing authority can refuse to renew the license in the absence of proof of lawful possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the licensing authority can refuse to renew the license in the absence of proof of lawful possession because: * Lawful possession is a relevant consideration for renewal of license as it is for the grant of license. * The omission of the words lawful possession in Rule 12-B of the Rules is not without purpose. The rule-making authority wanted to dispense with the obligation on the part of the licensing authority to specifically and on his own, address himself to the question of lawful possession at the time of renewal though lawful possession is, as we have already pointed out, a relevant consideration vis-a-vis renewal of license. * The licensing authority would have already applied his mind to that question and satisfied himself that the applicant would remain in lawful possession during the period of license in terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 11-B or the old Rule 12. * The person remaining in possession just before or after the expiry of the license period could be presumed to be in lawful possession, may be, with the consent-express or implied of the landlord.
Final Decision: The Court answered the question posed for its consideration against the petitioner and held that the licensing authority while renewing the license can legitimately enquire into the question of lawful possession and he is by duty bound to do so when an objection is raised by the landlord in that regard.
( 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, the 3rd respondent sought for revocation of B-Form licence issued to the petitioner. The objection of the 3rd respondent was over-ruled 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. 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 Talkies case (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 in advertent mistake inasmuch as the licence is to be granted or renewed under the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation), Act and Rule
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
