R.V. BHUPAL PRASAD versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 658 · Decided: 11-08-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Dismissed
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 
R.V. BHUPAL PRASAD 
v. 
·STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. 
AUGUST 11, 1995 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) 
A.P. Cinemas (Regulaiions) Rules, 1970-ll(B), 12(B)-Ciliema 
theatre-Licence-Renewal of--Held, licencee should show lawful possession 
of the premises and equipmellt. 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882-Sections 105, 106, 111, 116-Tenaltt in 
possession after. efflux of time-Held, is a tenant at sufferance-Possession 
not accepted or assented by landlady-Possession is not legal nor lawful but 
unlawful. 
Words and pltrases-"Tenat holding over'~ "tenant at sufferance'~ "lawful 
possession''-Meaning of. 
The Appellant had taken a theatre on lease for a period of 20 years 
from the Respondent No. 3 for exhibition of cinematograph films in 1964. 
The lease expired in 1983. When the Appellant sought renewal of licence 
under A.P. Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1970, it was objected to by ~e 
landlady Respondent No. 3 on the ground that his possession was not 
lawful. The licensing authority and appellate authority granted the licence. 
Thereafter in a writJ>etition by the landlady the Single Judge held that the 
appellant was not in lawful possession of the theatre and therefore, the 
grant of renewal was not justified in law. The writ appeal by the Appellant 
was dismissed. 
Before this Court it was contended by the Appellant that Rule 12(B) 
of the A.P. Cinemas Rules, introduced in 1983 did not contemplate lawful 
G possession as a criteria for renewal of licence and it was specifically done 
away with by the amendment, that the Full Bench of the A.P. High Court 
in Smt. Y. Anasuya v. Govt. of A.P., (1993) 1 ALT 661 (F.B.) wrongly 
interpreted the rule bringing the requirement of being in lawful possession 
at the stage of granting renewal of licence, that the appellant having 
lawfully entered into possession and having remained in possession during 
H the subsisting period of lease and after expiry thereof, his possession also 
658 
R.V.B. PRASAD v. STATE 
659 
is juridical possession until he is duly ejected by a deree of the court, his A 
possession cannot be termed to be unlawful nor can he be treated as a 
rank tresspasser that while interpreting the rule, the court would en-
deavour to give effect to the juridical possession so long as he is not duly 
ejected in due course of law and hence the Full Bench was not right in its 
conclusion. 
Respondent No. 3 landlady contended that as per the terms of lease 
deed the appellant had to deliver not only the vacant possession but also 
B 
the equipment without claiming any compensation on the expiry of lease 
period, that the landlady had not acquiesced the continuance of the 
appellant after the expiry of lease period, that the Full Bench while C 
interpreting the Rule, has taken notice that when licence is to be renewed, 
it should be subject to the willingness of the lessor, that possession of 
licensee cannot be considered lawful when the lessor had objected to the 
grant of renewal and therefore, the High Court was right in its conclusion 
that the possession of the apellant is not lawful for grant of the renewal of D 
the licence. 
Dismissing the Appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The second proviso to Rule 12(B) of the A.P. Cinemas 
(Regulations) Rules provides clearly that not only the conditions 
enumerated in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-rule (1), but also all the 
provisions of the Rules should be satisfied for the grant of renewal. The 
licensee should satisfy the licensing authority that he is in lawful posses-
sion when he seeks renewal. The decision of the Full Bench A.P. High Court 
is correct. (665-E; 671-D] 
Smt. Y. Anasuya v. Govt. of A.P., (1993) 1ALT661 (FB), approved. 
M. Kameswara Somayajulu v. State of A.P., (1989) 1 APLJ 82 (SN), 
disapproved. 
E 
F 
2. A tenant whose possession after expiry of period of lease bas not G 
been acquiesced by the landlord cannot claim any right or interest. Since 
the landlady had not accepted or assented to the apellant's continuance in 
possession, be cannot be treated as a tenant holding over. The possession 
of the appellant is as tenant at sufferance and is liable to ejectment in due 
course of law. His possession is not legal nor lawful, but unlawful or H 
660 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2S.C.R. 
A 
litigious. He is akin to a tresspasser, though initially he had lawful entry. 
(667-E; 668-A] 
B 
Latu Yeshwantsingh v. Rao Jagdish Sing & Ors., (1968) 2 SCR 203; 
East India Hotels v. Syn
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.