AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Prabha Sridevan, J.—Mr. A. Edwin, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the respondents.
The writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31.05.2006, by which the second respondent declined to receive the ""C"" Form licence in his
favour on the ground that he is not a tenant in lawful possession.
Mr. G. Veerapathiran, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that till date, the Thiruvaduthurai Adinam has not taken steps to evict him,
though it is true that the term of lease has expired. It is also his case that the Theatre belongs to him. Learned counsel submitted that the landlord
cannot evict him except by due process of law as he is in possession that in possession of the premises, which is not without any semblance of
right. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that he is not in lawful possession.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on M.C. Chockalingam and Others Vs. V. Manickavasagam and Others, 1989 W.L.R. 41
(Meenakshi Ammal v. The Chief Secretary to Government and Ors.), 1986 L.W. 661 (Manickavasagam v. The Board of Revenue), 1990 S.C.
2292 (Krishna Kishore Firm v. Govt. of A.P.), Palace-de-Wales Vs. The State of Tamilnadu and Another, and Sri Hanuman Vahana
Panchaparva Kattalai attached to Sri Venkatachalapathi Perumal Temple Vs. B.P. Subramanian, .
In M.C. Chockalingam and Others Vs. V. Manickavasagam and Others, , the lessee was evicted and he claimed that he was evicted unlawfully
and therefore entitled to restoration of possession u/s 6 of the Specific Relief Act. The Supreme Court held that Section 6 does not declare the
possession of an evicted person as one in lawful possession. The learned Counsel submitted that though on facts this decision may not apply to
him, there are observations in that judgment where it is stated that lawful possession is not litigious possession, but it must have some legal right to
possess and since he has a legal right to continue in possession, he is entitled to press this observation of the Supreme Court to his advantage.
Learned counsel also relied on Krishna Kishore Firm Vs. The Govt. of A.P. and others, , where it was held that the appellant who enters into an
agreement of sale before the expiry of lease with one of co-lessors can certainly claim that he was in unlawful possession and his application for
renewal of licence must be considered, treating him to be in unlawful possession. 1986 L.W. 661 (Supra) also deals with the distinction between
lawful possession, ''unlawful possession'' and ''wrongful possession'' and merely because the lease period had expired, a tenant cannot be
considered to be in unlawful possession. In Palace-de-Wales Vs. The State of Tamilnadu and Another, , it was held by the learned Judge that a
lessee in possession after expiry of lease period cannot be said to be in unlawful possession. Similarly, in Sri Hanuman Vahana Panchaparva
Kattalai attached to Sri Venkatachalapathi Perumal Temple Vs. B.P. Subramanian, it was held that the lessee overstaying cannot be considered to
be in unlawful possession and is entitled to a renewal.
Learned Government Advocate referred to R.V. Bhupal Prasad Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, , which is subsequent to all the
judgments cited above. The learned Government Advocate also submitted that the petitioner is continuing in possession only by virtue of the order
obtained in the suit for injunction filed by him.
In R.V. Bhupal Prasad Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, , the matter arose under the Andhra Pradesh Cinemas (Regulation) Rules,
which is almost identical to the Tamil Nadu Rules. The Supreme Court in that case, held that:
In view of the settled position of law, the possession of the appellant is as tenant at sufferance and is liable to ejectment in due course of law. But
his possession is not legal nor lawful. In other words, his possession of the theatre is unlawful or litigious possession. The appellant may remain in
possession until he is ejectd in due course in execution of the decree in the suit filed by the respondent. His possession cannot be considered to be
settled possession. He is akin to a trespasser, though initially he had lawful entry.
Therefore, the fact that until the landlord takes steps to evict him by due process of law, he continues in possession is not relevant. It is also seen
from the impugned order that the landlord namely, the Mutt had objected to the grant of licence.
The relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted, in view of the legal position as laid down by the Supreme Court in the above case.
The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.