Co-owner granted licence of theatre.

Petitioner seeks the issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the records of the Secretary to Government, (Home Cinema-II) Department, in G.O. N.(1D) 666, dated 24.2.1997, on the file of 3rd respondent and quash the same.

2. Petitioner is the licensee of Sri Lala Talkies, Vadipatti, Madurai District. It originally belonged to late Pon.Perumalsamy Naidu. On his death, the same devolved on his three sons, namely, Perumal, Pon-Subbiah and Thirumalaisamy Naidu. Of the three sons, Perumal is the petitioner and Pon-Subbiah is the 4th respondent herein. After the death of their father, a partition was effected in which the theatre was not the subject-matter. Even now the theatre and compound are retained as common property by the three brothers and all the three are even now co-owners. It is said that ‘C’ Form licence was issued to the petitioner since he is a co-owner. But, one of the co-owners, namely, 4th respondent filed application before the 1st respondent for cancellation of ‘C’ Form licence, and, as per order dated 27.7.1996, the ‘C’ Form licence was cancelled. Aggrieved by that Order, petitioner preferred an appeal to the Joint Commissioner of Land Administration. The appellate authority set aside the order and directed that time should be given to the parties to settle the dispute amicably, and till then the theatre should not be allowed to be closed. A direction was given to issue ‘E’ form licence to run the theatre. Aggrieved by the Order, the 4th respondent filed a revision before the 3rd respondent-Government to set aside the order of the appellate authority. The 3rd respondent also set aside the order of the appellate authority and restored the Order of 1st respondent. The order of 3rd respondent is now challenged in this writ petition on the ground that the Authorities have not rightly considered Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957. It is contended that the petitioner is a co-owner and he is the person in lawful possession, and either way he is entitled to get a licence.

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by 4th respondent stating that without the consent of co-owners, licence cannot be granted, and the order of 3rd respondent does not call for any interference.

4. I heard learned Additional Government Pleader also who argued an instructions, and he also supported the stand taken by the Government.

5. Before going to the merits and demerits of the case, it is better to consider as to what Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules provides. Rule 13 (1) which is relevant for our purpose, reads thus:

“If the applicant for the licence is the owner of the site, building and equipment, he shall produce to the licensing authority the necessary records relating to his ownership and possession thereof. If he is not the owner, he shall, to the satisfaction of the licensing authority, produce documentary evidence to show that he is in lawful possession of the site, building and equipment.” [Italics supplied]

As per that Rule, licence will have to be given either to the owner of the site, building or equipment. If either of these is satisfied, licence could be granted. On a reading of Rule 13(1), according to me, petitioner satisfied all the ingredients.

6. It is admitted case that petitioner and 4th respondent are co-owners along with another brother. It is also admitted that in regard to cinema theatre and the premises, the same has been left in common, and even now it is undivided. Since it is admitted that the parties are co-owners, according to me, that will be sufficient to grant licence.

7. In ‘Salmond on Jurisprudence’ 12th Edition (1966), the learned Author P.J.Fitzgerald has considered this question in the Chapter ‘Sale Ownership and Co-ownership’, at page 254. The relevant portion of that Chapter reads thus:

“As a general rule a thing is owned by one person only at a time, but duplicate ownership is perfectly possible. Two or more persons may at the same time have ownership of the same