Judgment:
ORDER
Subhashan Reddy, J.
1. This writ petition was earlier disposed of by me in the absence of the learned Counsel for the respondents, as they were not present at that time. On a petition being filed to restore the matter, this writ petition is restored to file. The respective contentions advanced by Mr. Y.N. Lohita, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.V.R. Sarma, the learned counsel for the third respondent as well as the learned Government Pleader are heard.
2. At issue, is whether the amended Andhra Pradesh Cinematograph Rules replacing the old Rules of 1970 contemplate proof of lawful possession for each and every renewal of cinematograph licence.
3. The property in question Navrang Theatre, was exhibiting films and the same was leased out by the petitioner, who is the owner, for a period of 20 years with effect from 1-1-1964. The lease deed does not contain any clause, expressly, for renewal of the lease. However, Mr. P.V.R. Sarma, the learned counsel for the third respondent contends that Clause 22 which says that the tenant shall pay Rs. 3,000/- per month till eviction will operate as renewal clause impliedly, as, though, originally the rent was less, the rent of Rs. 3,000/- was payable till eviction. I can dwell on this contention right now, but I am refraining to do so as my decision either way will have impact on the pending suit, before the civil court, inter se, the parties herein. Suffice it to say that the petitioner, who is the landlady and the lessor did not renew the lease and was in no mood to renew it, and was calling upon the lessees-exhibitors to vacate the premises and that ultimately the same was culminated into filing of O.S. No. 538 of 1985 on the file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, which is pending trial. The petitioner had also made several representations dated 25-3-1982, 23-3-1983, 19-12-1983, 28-12-1983, 2-1-1984 and 7-l-1984, intimating the Collector, the second respondent herein, that inasmuch as the tenancy of the lessees-exhibitors was expiring on 31-12-1983 and as the same was not being renewed, the Cinematograph licence also should not be renewed in favour of the lessees.
4. It is the complaint of the petitioner that eventhough she was crying hoarse that the tenancy came to an end and that the licence should not be renewed, the second respondent had illegally and arbitrarily renewed the licence without heeding to the objections raised by the petitioner and that the same illegality and arbitrariness perpetrated even at the appellate stage and the first respondent-appellate authority had confirmed the order of renewal of the second respondent.
5. It is the contention of Mr. Y.N. Lohita, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the possession of the exhibitors-lessees beyond the period of lease i.e., 31-12-1983, was no more lawful and was litigious, and as such the second respondent ought not to have renewed the licence.
6. Mr. P.V.R. Sarma, the learned counsel for the third respondent, replies that the said contention of the counsel for the petitioner was sustainable before the amendment of the Rules in question and not after amendment. Mr. Sarma, contends that the words employed under the previous Rule 11(e) of the Order, 1970, warranted the production of evidence of lawful possession for each and every renewal, and that the same is done away with, as the said words disappeared in the new Rules framed corresponding to Rule 12-B. These rules were subject matter of interpretation in four cases which are brought to my notice.
7. In Sri Vani Movie Tone v. R.D.O., Chandragiri, 1986 (2) ALT 92 (SN), Syed Shah Mohd. Quadri J. held that as the amended Rule does not require the proof of lawful possession for each and every renewal, the licensing authority is entitled to renew the licence without insisting upon the said proof. The distinction between the old rules and new rules was also the subject matters of discussion in the decisions reported in M. Kameswara Somayajulu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1987 APLJ 82 (SN) and Oriental Touring Talkies, Dasukuppam v. Asst. Collector, Chandragiri, 1987 (2) ALT 82 (SN). Similar view was followed by a learned single Judge of this court in W.P. No. 1848 of 1987, which was the subject matter of W.A. No. 562 of 1987, and which came before a Division Bench of this Court. After referring to the above three decisions, as also scanning through the old Rules of 1970 and later replaced by the new Rules in 1983, the Division Bench held that eventhough the requirement of proof of lawful possession for each and every renewal is not contemplated under the new rules, but once a dispute is raised with regard to the lawful possession, the licensing authority is bound to consider the same. In other words, what the Division Bench held was that initially at the time of grant of licence, the lessee is bound to prove the lawful possession and thereafter for each and every renewal he may not be liable to adduce such proof. But once a dispute is raised with regard to lawful possession by the lessor, the licencing authority is bound to consider the same. The said ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court, which is an authoritative pronouncement on this issue is squarely applicable on all fours in the instant case. Here is a case, where eventhough the lease subsisted for 20 years and on the basis of the lease deed a licence was initially granted, even before the expiry of the period of lease without extending the same, the petitioner had been addressing the licensing authority not to renew the licence. But the licensing authority went ahead with the same without even considering the objections raised by the petitioner.
8. Mr. P.V.R. Sarma, the learned counsel for the third respondent, has cited a decision reported in Krishna Kishore Firm v. Govt. of A.P., : AIR1990SC2292 to impress upon me that the earlier view taken in M.C. Chockalingam v. M. Manichavasagam, : [1974]2SCR143 has been overruled. I am afraid I cannot accede to this contention as the decision reported in Krishna Kishore Firm v. Govt. of A.P., : AIR1990SC2292 does not go to show that the ratio laid down in M.C. Chockalingam v. V.M. Manichavasagam, : [1974]2SCR143 has been overruled. On the other hand, it seeks to distinguish the case arising in Krishna Kishore Firm v. Govt. of A.P., : AIR1990SC2292 from that of M.C. Chockalingam v. M.C. Manichavasagam, : [1974]2SCR143 . In the latter case adjudicated in Krishna Kishore Firm v. Govt. of A.P., : AIR1990SC2292 the Supreme Court had held that inasmuch as the lessee, before the expiry of lease, had become owner and claimed paramount and superior title from that of inferior title, cannot be held to be in unlawful possession. Such is not the case in the case on hand. As such, the ratio decided in the said case is inapplicable to the instant case.
9. In the circumstances, I hold that the licensing authority was bound to consider the objections of the petitioner that after the expiry of the original lease deed, the possession of the lessee had become litigious. Inasmuch as the licence subsists till 31-12-1983, the respondents 3 to 20 - lessees-exhibitors shall continue to exhibit the films upto 31-12-1992, but before that date the second respondent is directed to issue notice to the petitioner herein and the existing lessees-exhibitors and decide the matter in the light of the observations made above. I also direct the Court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, to dispose of O.S. No. 538 of 1985 on his file, by 31st December, 1992. Meanwhile the respondent No. 3 - lessee-exhibitor shall pay the petitioner differential rent at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per month from 31-12-1983 till 31-7-1992, by 15-10-92 and at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month from 1-8-1992 till the matter is decided as directed above.
10. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.