M. C. CHOCKALINGAM & ORS. versus V. MANICKAVASAGAM & ORS.

Citation: [1974] 2 S.C.R. 143 · Decided: 31-10-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
.; 
• 
F 
G 
.. 
143 
M. C. CHOCKALINGAM & ORS. 
v. 
V. MANICKA VASAGAM & ORS. 
October 31, 1973 
(P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.] 
Afadras Cincnias (Regulations) Act, 1955 (Act No. 9 of 
1955) 
SectionJ 
5(1), (7), 5(2)(a)-"Person aggrie~·cd" ins. 5(7)- Madras Cinemas (Regula-
tions) Rules, 1951, Rule 13-lnterpretarion of-Whether applies to case of 
removal of licence-Tenant continuing in po.~session after determination .of 
tenancy and expiry of lease-Distinction between lawful possession and juridical 
posses.~ion-Whether non-statutory tena11t can raise plea of lawful 
po11e,11lo1t 
even on expiry of lease-Specific Act, 1877, Section 9, and Act 43 of 
1963, S. 6-Trans/er of Property Act, 1882, s. 
IOB(a)...:._Held, 
non-statulory 
tenant cannot continue iti "lawful possession" on expiry of lease. 
Constitution of India, Art. 226-No manifest error of law-Interference by 
High Court Mt warranted. 
The appellants-lessors are the sole and absolute owners of the demised pre-
mises-a cinema theatre. 
By a registered composite lease, they leased the land, 
buildings and the cinematographic equlptilent in it to the first respondent for a 
period of three yea'rs from 19th August, 1969 subject, inter alia, to recovery of 
possession on termination of the lease. It was the admitted case of both parties 
that the lease exPired on 18th August, 1972, ~nd that the case was not governed 
by the Madras Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. ·to entitle the 
tenant to claim statutory protection from eviction under the Act. The appel-
lants issued a notice dated 15th May, 1972, to the first respcndent to dehver 
back possession on the expiry of the lease. On 17th June, 1972, the first rese 
pondent made an application to the licensing authority urider the Madras 
Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 (briefly, the Act) to renew the licence for 
resuming Cinema Theatre. The only documentary evidence produced by thl"-
respondent in regard to his possession was the expired Jease. 
On 12th July, 
1972, the appellants also made an application to grant the licence in their favollr. 
[n August. 1972. the licensing authority. by a common order in both the app!i~ 
cations. renewed the licence of the respondent and rejected the application of 
the appellants. On 14th August, 1972, the appellants preferred an appeal to the 
Board of Revenue. The Board held that the respondent was no·t in lawful pos~ 
session of the leased property and set aside the order of the licensing authority 
on 16th September, 1972. The first respondent then fifed on 18th September, 
1972 a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The learned single 
Judge of the High Court. while interpreting Rule 13 of the Madras Cinemas 
(Regulations:) Rules. 1957, (briefly, the Rules), affirmed the finding of the Board 
and dismissed the \\"rit petition on 8th February, 1973. The respondent there-
upon preferred a Letters. Patent Appeal. The Division Bench of the High Court,· 
however, relying upon a decision of this Court in Lalu Yeslnvant Sb1g;1 v. Rao 
Jagdish Singh and Others (infra), held that. the respondent's possession after 
the expiry of the lease was lawful possession within the ineaning of Ru!! 13 and 
allowed the appeal on 4th July, 1973. On aPpeal by specia; leave to this Court 
the appellants raised the following contentions: (i) the High Court erred in itS 
"interpretation of Rule 13 and in holding that the respondents are in lawful pos-
session of the leased properties after expiry of the lease; and (ii) that at any rat.:i 
the High Court could not interfere With the order of the Board under Art. 226 
o' the Constitution on the principles laid down by this· Court in such matters. 
The respondents, on the other hand, made the following submissions: (i) that 
the lessor is not a person aggri~vect"un~er section 5(7) of the Act and is, there· 
fore, not competent to appeal to the Board under that section; (ii) that Rule 13 
does not apply to a case of renewal.of lic~nce; (iii) _that "lawful possession·' in 
Rule 13 means only iaridical possession i.e. protected. by law such as section 9 
(old) and section 6(new) of the Specific Relief Act and, therefore, the Hiih 
'Court rightly. held that the respondents were in lawful possession of the property 
after the expiry of the lease and as such entitled to renewal of the licence· and 
<iv) that the High Court under Art. 226 has jurisdiction to quash an onier of 
the Board if there is 'a man
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.