9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Lawful possession of the property for license renewal. 2. Interpretation of Rules 11(B) and 12(B) of the A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970. 3. Tenant's status after lease expiry. 4. Legal implications of contract terms post-lease expiry. Detailed Analysis: 1. Lawful Possession of the Property for License Renewal The primary issue was whether the appellant was in "lawful possession" of the property necessary for the renewal of the cinema license under the A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970. The appellant argued that his possession was juridical and protected by law until he was duly ejected by a court decree. The respondent contended that the appellant's possession was unlawful post-lease expiry, as the landlady had not acquiesced in his continued possession. 2. Interpretation of Rules 11(B) and 12(B) of the A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970 The appellant argued that Rule 12(B), which deals with the renewal of licenses, does not require proof of lawful possession, unlike Rule 11(B) which deals with the initial grant of licenses. The court, however, noted that the second proviso of Rule 12(B)(1) indicates that the licensing authority must be satisfied that all provisions of the rules are fulfilled, implicitly requiring lawful possession for renewal as well. 3. Tenant's Status After Lease Expiry The court examined the appellant's status after the lease expired on December 31, 1983. Under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, a lease can be renewed if the lessor accepts rent or otherwise assents to the lessee's continued possession. In this case, the landlady did not accept rent or assent to the appellant's continued possession, making the appellant a tenant at sufferance. A tenant at sufferance is one who wrongfully continues in possession after the lawful title has expired, and such possession is akin to that of a trespasser. 4. Legal Implications of Contract Terms Post-Lease Expiry The lease agreement explicitly required the appellant to deliver possession of the property upon lease expiry. The contract also stipulated that the appellant would pay damages for use and occupation at the rate of Rs. 100 per day until evicted by law, indicating that his possession post-lease was not juridical but unlawful. Clause 23 further required the appellant to cooperate in transferring all licenses back to the lessor upon lease expiry, reinforcing the intention that the appellant's possession was to end with the lease term. Conclusion The court concluded that the appellant's possession post-lease expiry was not lawful. The High Court's decision that the appellant was not in lawful possession for the purpose of license renewal was upheld. The appeals were dismissed, and the respondents were entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellant pursuant to the interim order passed by the court.
|
