SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition was earlier disposed of by me in the absence of the learned counsel for the respondents, as they were not present at that time. On a petition being filed to restore the matter, this writ petition is restored to file. The respective contentions advanced by Mr. Y. N. Lohita, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P. V. R. Sarma, the learned counsel for the third respondent as well as the learned Government Pleader are heard.

( 2 ) AT issue, is whether the amended Andhra Pradesh Cinematograph Rules replacing the old Rules of 1970 contemplate proof of lawful possession for each and every renewal of cinematograph licence.

( 3 ) THE property in question Navrang Theatre, was exhibiting films and the same was leased out by the petitioner, who is the owner, for a period of 20 years with effect from 1-1-1964. The lease deed does not contain any clause, expressly, for renewal of the lease. However, Mr. P. V. R. Sarma, the learned counsel for the third respondent contends that Clause 22 which says that the tenant shall pay rs. 3,000/- per month till eviction will operate as renewal clause impliedly, as, though, originally the rent was less, the rent of Rs. 3,000/- was payable till eviction. I can dwell on this contention right now, but I am refraining to do so as my decision either way will have impact on the pending suit, before the civil court, inter se, the parties herein. Suffice it to say that the petitioner, who is the landlady and the lessor did not renew the lease and was in no mood to renew it, and was calling upon the lessees-exhibitors to vacate the premises and that ultimately the same was culminated into filing of O. S. No. 538 of 1985 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, which is pending trial. The petitioner had also made several representations dated 25-3-1982, 23-3-1983,19-12-1983,28-12-1983,2-1-1984 and 7-l-1984, intimating the Collector, the second respondent herein, that inasmuch as the tenancy of the lessees- exhibitors was expiring on 31-12-1983 and as the same was not being renewed, the Cinematograph licence also should not be renewed in favour of the lessees.

( 4 ) IT is the complaint of the petitioner that eventhough she was crying hoarse that the tenancy came to an end and that the licence should not be renewed, the second respondent had illegally and arbitrarily renewed the licence without heeding to the objections raised by the petitioner and that the same illegality and arbitrariness perpetrated even at the appellate stage and the first respondent- appellate authority had confirmed the order of renewal of the second respondent.

( 5 ) IT is the contention of Mr. Y. N. Lohita, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the possession of the exhibitors-lessees beyond the period of lease i. e. , 31-12-1983, was no more lawful and was litigious, and as such the second respondent ought not to have renewed the licence.

( 6 ) MR. P. V. R. Sarma, the learned counsel for the third respondent, replies that the said contention of the counsel for the petitioner was sustainable before the amendment of the Rules in question and not after amendment. Mr. Sarma, contends that the words employed under the previous Rule 11 (e) of the Order, 1970, warranted the production of evidence of lawful possession for each and every renewal, and that the same is done away with, as the said words disappeared in the new Rules framed corresponding to Rule 12-B. These rules were subject matter of interpretation in four cases which are brought to my notice.

( 7 ) IN Sri Vani Movie Tone vs. R. D. O. , Chandragiri, Syed Shah Mohd. Quadri. held that as the amended Rule does not require the proof of lawful possession for each and every renewal, the licensing authority is entitled to renew the licence without insisting upon the said proof. The distinction between the old rules and new rules was also the subject matters of discussion in the decisions reported in M.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document