( 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 But it was withdrawn and a suit was filed in the year 1987 and it is also pending.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 re