K.E. Goverdhan vs N. Krishna Rao

Jagannatha Shetty, Ag. C.J.

This appeal is directed against the order of the Learned Single Judge made in Writ Petition No. 7877/73. The Learned Judge has allowed the Writ Petition with a direction to the District Magistrate to reconsider the application of the first respondent for grant of licence in accordance with law.

To state briefly, the facts are these : N. Krishnarao the first respondent has got a touring cinema theatre on the vacant site in a portion of Sy. Nos. 22/2 and 22/3 of Thavarekere Village, Bangalore South Taluk. He had the licence to run the touring cinema on the said site. On the expiry of the term of the licence, he made an application for renewal of the licence. That application was rejected on the ground that the possession of the said site upon the expiry of the lease in his favour was not lawful. Evidently the rejection was on the basis of Rule-6 of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1971, which reads :-

"6. RECORDS RELATING TO OWNERSHIP OR POSSESSION TO SITE, BUILDING OR EQUIPMENT TO BE PRODUCED :

If the applicant for licence is the owner of the site, building or equipment he shall produce before the Licensing Authority necessary records relating to his ownership and possession. If he is not the owner, he shall produce to the satisfaction of the Licensing Authority documentary evidence in proof of his lawful possession of the site, building or equipment."

(Underlining is curs)

The said rule requires the owner of the theatre to produce to the satisfaction of the Licensing Authority documentary evidence in proof of his lawful possession of the site, building or equipment. The District Magistrate was of the opinion that the first respondent was not in lawful possession of the site since the term of the lease had expired. The rejection order of the District Magistrate was confirmed by the Divisional Commissioner in Appeal. However, the first respondent succeeded in this Court in the aforesaid Writ Petition. While allowing the Writ Petition, the Learned Judge has observed that the premises in which the touring cinema is located is a premises falling within the definition of that word under the Karnataka Rent Control Act and that, therefore, the tenant is in lawful possession of that premises even after the expiry of the term of the lease since he is protected as a statutory tenant.

Being aggrieved by the order of the Learned Judge, the landlord of the premises has preferred this Writ Appeal.

The view taken by the Learned Judge appears to be correct and does not require reconsideration. It is not in dispute that the premises in question is situated within the limits of the Corporation of the City of Bangalore attracting the provisions of the Karnataka Rent Control Act (the ''Act'').

''Premises'' u/s 3(n) of that Act is defined to mean : (i) a building as defined in Clause (a); and (ii) any land not used for agricultural purposes.

''Building'' is defined in Section 3(a) of the Act as follows :--

"(a) "building'' means any building or hut or part of a building or hut other than a farmhouse, let or to be let separately for residential or non-residential purpose and includes --

(i) garden, grounds and out-houses, if any, appurtenant to such building, hut or part of such building or hut and let or to be let along with such building or hut or part of building or hut ;

(ii) any furniture supplied by the landlord for the use in such building or hut or part of a building or hut ;

(iii) any a fittings fixed to such building or part of a building for the more beneficial enjoyment thereof, but does not include a room or other accommodation in a hotel or a lodging house".

It is therefore obvious that the vacant land which is not used for agricultural purpose falls within the definition of premises. Section 21 of the Act gives protection to tenants occupying such premises against eviction. The tenants could be evicted only in the manner provided under the proviso to Section 21(1) of the Act.

Mr.Narayana Rao for the appellant has, however, urged that Section 21 of the Act is not attracted to the case since Section 31 exempts the premises fetching monthly rent exceeding Rs. 500/- Here there appears to be soma confusion. Section 31 giving exemption, does not deal with premises, but only non-residential buildings, the monthly rent of which exceeds Rs. 500/- or the annual rent of which exceeds Rs. 6,000/-. Vacant site in question obviously does not fall within the scope of Section 31 of the Act. It is only a building which is a part of the definition of "premises" that has been singled out for exemption from the operation of the provisions of Part-V of the Act. Krishnarao who is in possession of a vacant site is, therefore, entitled to protection from eviction under the Act even after the expiry of his lease. Since he is not liable to be evicted except in the manner provided under the proviso to Section 21(1) of the Act, his possession must be regarded as lawful.

In the view that we have taken, the decision of the Supreme Court in M.C. Chockalingam and Others Vs. V. Manickavasagam and Others, on which Sri Narayana Rao for the appellant relies is not applicable since that decision was concerned with a case not governed by the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.