A TENANT WHO CONTINUES IN POSSESSION OF A PROPERTY EVEN AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE LEASE PERIOD WITHOUT THE ACQUIESCENCE OF THE LESSOR IS NOT IN LAWFUL POSSESSION.

K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J.

.1. Three writ petitions were filed by the appellant, Madura Talkies Private Limited all relating to the grant of C’ form licence for running the cinema theatre, and for various reliefs, which were disposed of by S.S. Subramani, J. by a common order dated 24. 1998. W.P.No. 1170 of 1998 was filed for a writ of certiorified mandamus to quash the proceedings of the Collector, Madurai District, dated 30.12.1997 and to direct him to consider the application for the renewal of C’ form licence issued in favour of the petitioner. W.P.No. 3514 of 1998 was directed against the grant of E form licence which was granted for restricted period between 3. 1998 and 23. 1998. The present appeal has been filed against the order in W.P.No. 4193 of 1998 wherein the appellant had prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order of the first respondent, District Collector, Madurai, dated 23. 1998 in so far as it restricted the period of C form licence only up to 23. 1998 and to enable the petitioner/theatre to function up to the expiry of the period of the certificate issued by the Chief Electrical Inspector, to the appellant.

2. According to the appellant, it was a company registered under the Companies Act owning a permanent theatre known as New Cinema in Madurai. The land on which the theatre is located belongs to the second respondent and others. The land was leased to the appellant in the year 1935 under a registered lease deed for putting up a cinema theatre. After taking over the property on lease the appellant had put up buildings to run a cinema, erected machinery, furniture, fittings etc. and have been running the cinema theatre since then. Theatre has also been duly licensed under the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act and Rules thereunder. The lease was granted to the appellant in the year 1935 and renewed from time to time by registered deeds up to 1990. From 1990 the lease had been renewed in favour of the appellant under unregistered lease deeds. The last of the renewal was executed in April, 1997 renewing the lease up to 23. 1998. Since they have put up the construction in the land, the appellants were entitled to the benefits under the City Tenants Protection Act. The last of the C’ form licence was granted up to 310. 1997 and the appellant made an application under for renewal of C form licence under Rule 92 of the Tamil Nadu Cinema Regulations Rules after enclosing all the necessary and relevant documents as required under the said Rule. Even though the application was made within the prescribed time and all the requirements are complied with, the first respondent Collector, kept the renewal of the application pending and was issuing only E form permit under Rule 97 from month to month. While granting E form permit for the period from 3. 1998 to 23. 1998 the appellant was informed that since the lease was coming to an end on 23. 1998, the renewal would be granted only if they produce registered lease deed in respect of the land for the period beyond 23. 1998. Since the order was contrary to the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act and the appellant was in lawful possession of the site, there was no warrant for the first respondent to pass an order. The appellant had therefore, filed a writ petition in W.P.No. 3514 of 1998 questioning the said order. This Court had ordered notice to the respondents. While matters stood thus the District Collector, Madurai, passed an order on 23. 1998 on the appellants application for renewal, restricting the period of renewal up to 23. 1998, on the ground that the lease of land was up to 23. 1998. Therefore, according to the appellant, the restriction of the period of C’ form licence up to 23. 1998 was irregular and without jurisdiction. The reasons contained in the order as confirmed by the Joint Commissioner of Land Administration, were illegal and contrary to law. The authorities failed to see that in view of