( 1 ) "whether a lesses of a cinema theatre is a tenant, and not liable to be evicted otherwise than under the Act. "

( 2 ) THIS is the question which has been referred to a Full Bench by Venkatesam and A. D. V. Reddy, JJ. The Act concerned is "the Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act (XV of 1960. "

( 3 ) THE facts are simple and are not in dispute. A cinema theatre situate in Saidabad, Hyderabad City, known as "jagat Talkies" was given on lease by the vendors of the plaintiffs to the defendant on 7-1-1960 under a lease deed, marked as Ex. A-2. That lease was initially to be for a period of three years. The defendant however, had the option to extend the lease by another two years. The plaintiffs purchased the cinema house from the lessors under the sale deed. Ex. A-1, dated 4-7-1963. By his letter, Ex. A-4 of 11-7-63, the defendant attorney the lease in favour of the plaintiffs and since then was paying the rent to them alone. The defendant exercised the option and extended the lease period by two years. Even the extended period came to an end by 10-1-1965, because the defendant had been put in possession of the demised premises on 11-1-1960 in pursuance of Ex. A-1. The defendant was to deliver possession to the plaintiffs on 11-1-1965 according to the terms of the lease, but did not do so. the plaintiffs filed a petition under the Act for eviction, but for reasons not now disclosed, it was withdrawn by them. It is stand by the defendant that the withdrawal had taken place even before he had filed his counter and the said statement is not denied. It can therefore, be safely inferred that the eviction petition had been withdrawn by the plaintiffs on their own initiative and not on account of any objection raised by the defendant. Soon after the withdrawal of the petition, they filed the present suit on 24-4-1965 for eviction of the defendant from the demised premises, for possession of the premises with the machinery in working condition, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6666-66 towards period from 11-1-1965 to 24-4-1965, and damages for the further period from the date of the suit. It was alleged in the plaint that the lease in question was a composite lease of a cinema theatre with machinery and equipment including projectors for running cinematography picture and was, as such, outside the scope of the Act. On the other hand, the defendant averred that a civil Court had not jurisdiction to entertain the suit for eviction and the lease came within the purview of the At. The lower Court held that what was leased out to the defendant was the theatre along with its accessories solely for the purpose of running a cinema business. Since only purpose of exhibiting the films in the theatre for a particular period, the Act would not govern the lease and consequently the relieves of eviction and possession came within the purview of the ordinary Civil Court. Having taken that with some damages for use and occupation. Aggrieved by the said decision, the defendant brought the matter in appeal to this Court and while hearing that appeal, our learned brethren have referred the above said question for the opinion of a Full Bench.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant argues that the Lower Court has laboured under a misapprehension that the demise is one of a running business. In this reading of the lease deed, it is none other than a demise of the theatre with its appertaining structures, furniture and fittings like film projector, etc. The learned counsel for the respondents, however, endeavors, to sustain the conclusion of the Court below and to maintain that the lease outside the scope of the Act.

( 5 ) IT is thus necessary to refer to the material clauses of the lease deed. It starts with saying in clause (1) that the lessors were the absolute and exclusive owners of the cinema theatre. Clause (2) then recites that the parties have agreed to enter into a lease in respect of the theatre, known as