( 1 ) THE appellant-writ petitioner filed appeal assailing the judgment of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petition.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case are : appellant was a lessee of a cinema theatre known as Sri Raja Rajeshwari Theatre at Bellary. The appellant has taken the theatre with all equipments and lease- cum-hire vide agreement dated 14-7-1990. The period of lease was upto 22-7-1994 and was extended at first instance upto 23-12-1994 and again extended upto 28-2-1995. It is the case of the appellant that even after the expiry of the said period he continued to run the cinema show in the theatre and the licence issued under the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 continued upto 31-5-1995.

( 3 ) THE appellant applied to the respondent 1 (Licencing Authority) for renewing of licence for the period from 1-6-1995 to 31-12-1995. The 3rd respondent who is the owner of the theatre and equipment filed an objection opposing the renewal of the licence on the ground that the appellant is continuing in the possession of the premises after 28-2-95 illegally as the lease was not extended and the 3rd respondent was the licence holder, and the appellant could not seek renewal. It is the case of the appellant that even though the lease has expired he was in possession lawfully as a tenant. He also filed O. S. No. 173/95 on the file of the Additional Munsiff, Bellary, and obtained order of restraining 3rd respondent from interfering with the possession and use of the theatre, therefore, licence should be renewed. The licencing authority rejected the request of the petitioner for grant of licence holding that petitioner has no locus standi and no right to get the licence and he is not in lawful possession of the premises. Against that order petitioner filed appeal before 2nd respondent and he dismissed the appeal vide order dt. 24-2-96. Assailing that order writ petition is filed.

( 4 ) IT is the case of the appellant that 3rd respondent who is the owner of the cinema theatre and equipment and which has been granted licence to run the cinema theatre under Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 (hereinafter called the 'act') has leased the theatre with equipment subject to terms and conditions contained in the agreement. After expiry of the agreed lease period the appellant is continuing as a statutory tenant by virtue of the protection against eviction as provided under Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, so he is in lawful possession and running the theatre and entitled to seek renewal of licence and respondent-3 landlord has no right to object for renewal. The lease of the building amounts to lease of building with fittings as defined u/s. 3 (a) of the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961.

( 5 ) THE respondent 3 contended that the lease was a composite lease of theatre building and cinema equipment and dominant purpose of lease was not letting out a building with furniture and fittings, but to let out the cinema business. The lease of the running cinema theatre building with equipment would fall outside the scope of the 'building' as defined in the Karnataka Rent Control Act. So the appellant is not entitled to statutory protection against eviction under the Rent Control Act. There after expiry of the lease period the appellant seems to be in unlawful possession of the premises, so cannot claim renewal of licence. It is further contended that appellant could not apply for renewal of licence as the licence did not stand in the name of appellant but stood in the name of 3rd respondent, owner of the theatre, and only respondent-3 is entitled to obtain renewal of licence. Therefore, rejection of the application of the appellant and dismissal of appeal by Appellate Authority was wholly in accordance with law.

( 6 ) THE learned single Judge heard both the counsels and perused entire material on record at the stage of admission itself and held that the lease of the cinema theatre along with the equipment is not a lease