The central legal point established in the judgment is that in a partnership dispute over a cinema license, the requirement of lawful possession under Rule 13 (1) can be satisfied by a co-owner and partner, entitling them to inclusion in the license.

1. The petitioner has filed the above writ petition seeking for a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the proceedings of the first respondent in G.O.Ms .No. 148 Home (Cinema)Department dated 26.2.2001 of the second respondent made in Cinema Appeal No.10 of 2000 D.Dis.L. dated 17.7.2000 and of the third respondent dated 13.12.1999 and quash the proceedings of the respondent 1 to 3 dated 26-02-2001, 17.7.2000 and 13.12.1999 respectively to include the name of the petitioner and the fourth respondent in “C” form Licence and grant renewal of the same in respect of the Star Talkies, Triplicane High Road, Chennai - 600 005.

2. Heard both sides.. It is the case of the petitioner that Star Talkies is located in Door No. 40 and 41, Triplicane High Road, Chennai. The theater is located in Door No. 40 and Door No.41 has been used as parking area for the above theatre. The lands comprised in Door No.41 is absolutely owned by the petitioner and in Door No. 40, the petitioner is owning 50% undivided share in land and building. The Cinema Theatre was run by Partnership consisting of four persons namely M.V. Babji, M.V. Prakash, M.V. Padmanabhan and M.V. Basha. The equipments and furnitures in the theatre belonged to the partnership firm. After the death of Babji, his son M.V. Pratap was inducted as Partner and after the demise of the said M.V. Pratap, his wife Saraswathi Devi Pratap became one of the partners of the firm. In the year 1993, the petitioner has purchased 50% of the undivided share of the land and building in Door No. 40, Triplicane High Road from the said Saraswathi Devi Pratap. Now, the petitioner is holding 50% of sh are in both land and building at Door No.40 and also 75% share in the partnership, besides that he is the absolute owner of the property in Door No.41. In the year 1996, the petitioner along with the 4th respondent has submitted an application to the 3rd respondent requesting to issue “C” Form Licence and also for inclusion of their names in the “C” Form Licence. Later, the 4th respondent withdrew her consent and opposed the renewal as well as transfer of “C” Form licence in the name of the petitioner. The licensing authority has rejected the application, which was confirmed by the appellate authority, 2nd respondent herein. The petitioner has also preferred a revision before the 1st respondent, who has granted “E” Form licence temporarily to run the theatre, later, on 26.2.2001, the revision was dismissed. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is holding major share namely 75% in the partnership firm as well as 50% undivided share in Door No.40, besides he is the absolute owner of the property in Door No.41, Triplicane High Road, Madras as such the petitioner is in lawful possession of the theatre for the purpose of Rule 13 (1) of the Cinema Regulations Rules. The respondents 1 to 3 have committed grave irregularity in rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The findings of the respondents that the petitioner is not in lawful possession as the 4th respondent has opposed the renewal and transfer is unsustainable in law.

4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied on the following Judgments in support of his case. (i) The Licensee, Sri Lala Talkies, Vadipatty, Madurai Taluki, 1999 (I) MLJ 526, wherein in Para 12 it has been held as follows:

“A question may arise whether petitioner is entitled to do cinema business without the consent of others. A co-owner is entitled to enjoy the property and make use of the same without detriment to the other co-owners. At the most, he will be liable for accounts. In a joint property, any co-owner has to use such property usefully in the sense that his user should not amount to ouster of their co-owners. In this case, petitioner admits the right of other co-owners and he does not want the right of other c o-owners to be taken away. If a theatr