VAIDIALINGAM, J. :- The point referred by the learned Chief Justice and Madhavan Nair, J., for adjudication by this Full Bench, in substance is one relating to the question as to whether the letting of the two picture houses in these cases, to which we will refer later, and evidenced by the lease deed Ex. A-1 in respect of one theatre, and by a compromise decree, in respect of the other threatre, come within the ambit of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1959, Act XVI of 1959 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act).

2. It is necessary to set out in brief, the circumstances which led to this reference being made to the Full Bench. It will be seen that the subject-matter of the leases are two cinema houses, situated in Kozhikode one the Coronation Threatre, and the other the Badha Picture Palace. Both these picture houses belong to the Pootheri family. It is also seen that the Coronation Theatre was leased out on 28-8-1956, by the owner of the premises, one Krishna Menon, in favour of the first respondent in A. S. 188/1962. The lease deed regarding the said transaction is Ex. B-1. The total rent per month in respect of the items mentioned in the three schedules, come to about Rs. 1600. There is also a provision in the lease deed for payment of enhanced rent after one year. The landlord demanded surrender of the properties, after terminating the lease, on 25-7-1960. But inasmuch as the lessee did not comply with the demand, the lessor had to institute a suit for eviction and recovery of possession, before the Subordinate Judge's Court, Kozhikode as O. S. No. 49/1960.

In that suit, ultimately a compromise decree was passed on 31-1-1961, in and by which, the lessee agreed to surrender possession of the properties on 1-11-1961, and also further agreed to pay an enhanced rent of Rs. 2100. But before the expiry of the period, within which the surrender was to be made, the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Amendment Act, 1961, Act 29 of 1961, had come into force, amending the original Act of 1959. The Amendment Act was published on 31-8-1961, though it is seen, that the Act itself was to take effect from the date of the Parent Act, namely 3-4-1959. In consequence, the lessee, claiming protection from eviction, on the basis of the Act, filed an application before the lower Court, E. P. 879/1961, for a declaration that in consequence of the Amendment Act. Act 29 of 1961, he could not be evicted and, therefore, the decree could no longer be put in execution. The learned Subordinate Judge, by his order, dated 25-11-1961, accepted the claim made by the lessee, and passed an order to the effect that the landlord is not entitled to get possession of the properties. Against that order, the landlord has filed A. S. No. 188/1962 before this Court.

3. Similarly, in respect of the other picture house, namely the Radha Picture Palace, it was the subject again of a lease, by the owner, in favour of the respondent in A. S. 280/1962, under Ex. A-1, dated 7-3-1956. To have a general idea of the nature of the clauses contained in both the lease deeds, which are substantially the same, we will have to refer, in the latter part of this judgment, to some of the clauses in Ex. A-1. But it is enough at this stage to note that the term provided in Ex. A-1 expired on 16-3-1961; and inasmuch as surrender of possession was not obtained, the landlord, in turn had to institute O. S. No. 26/1961 before the lower Court, for eviction. Here again, the defence raised by the lessee was that he cannot be evicted; and his line of defence was also similar, to the defence raised by the lessee, under Ex. B-1. The lower Court in this case accepted this contention of the lessee. But ultimately on 31-1-1962, the lower Court, while passing a decree for eviction, in favour of the landlord, qualified it by saying that the said decree for eviction is subject to execution under the provisions of the Act. Against that decree, the lessor has filed A.