Writ Petition No. 8898 of 2022 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13073 WP No. 8898 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8161 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8898 OF 2022 (C) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 8161 OF 2022 (C) IN WP No. 8898/2022 BETWEEN: SRI K N MURALIKRISHNA S/O LATE K H NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, PROP: ADITYA ENTERPRISES, LEASE HOLDER OF PADMANJALI AND PUSPANJALI THEATRE, NO.82/2, 1ST FLOOR, 4TH MAIN ROAD, BETWEEN 13TH AND 15TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE-560003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A GOPIPRAKASH.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13073 WP No. 8898 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8161 of 2022 2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER 2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING, K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVAN, FLAT NO.77, KARURU INDUSTRIAL AREA, OLD PUNA BOMBAY ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577006. 4. ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LICENSING AUTHORITY OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FLAT NO.77, KARUR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE OLD TB ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577005.
Legal Reasoning
5. M/S R HANUMANTHAPPA AND SON REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM, REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SRI R S HANUMANTHA RAJU, S/O LATE R R SRINIVAS MURTHY, OFFICE AT H HANUMANTAPPA, BUILDING PUNA BENGALURU ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577002.
Legal Reasoning
6. R R SRINIVASA MURTHY S/O LATE R S RAVIDRANATH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, HANUMANTAPPA BUILDING, POONA BANGALORE ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577002. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13073 WP No. 8898 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8161 of 2022 7. SRI R H RAMAN S/O SRI R S HANUMANTHARAJU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, HANUMANTAPPA BUILDING, POONA BANGALORE ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577002. 8. SMT R V JAYALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, HANUMANTAPPA BUILDING, POONA BANGALORE ROAD, DAVANAGERE-577002. (BY SRI.M.S. RAJENDRA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R8) …RESPONDENTS THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE R-2 AND 3 AUTHORITIES; QUASH THE IMPUGNED FINAL ORDER DATED 22.2.2022 ENT APPEAL NO.1/2020 CLUBBED WITH ENT APPEAL NO.1/2021 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. IN WP NO. 8161/2022 BETWEEN: SRI K N MURALIKRISHNA S/O LATE K.H.NAGARAJA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS PROP: ADITYA ENTERPRISED LEASE HOLDER OF - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13073 WP No. 8898 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8161 of 2022 PADMAJALI AND PUSPANJALI THEATRE 82/2, 1st FLOOR, 4th MAIN, BETWEEN 13th AND 15th CROSS, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU 560 003. (BY SRI. A GOPIPRAKASH.,ADVOCATE) ...PETITIONER AND: 1. CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 56001. 2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER 2nd FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BENGALURU 560 027. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVAN FLAT NO.77, KARURU INDUSTRIAL AREA OLD PUNA BOMBAY ROAD, DAVANAGERE 577 006. 4. ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LICENSING AUTHORITY OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FLAT NO.77 KARUR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE OLD TB ROAD DAVANAGERE 577 005. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13073 WP No. 8898 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8161 of 2022 5. M/S R. HANUMANTHAPPA AND SON, REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM REP BY ITS PARTNER SRI. R.S. HANUMANTHA RAJU S/O LATE R.R. SRINIVAS MURTHY. OFFICE AT H.HANUMANTHAPPA BUILDING PUNA BENGALURU ROAD, DAVANAGERE 577 002. 6. R.R. SRINIVASA MURTHY S/O LATE R.S RAVINDRANATH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, HANUMANTHAPPA BUILDING POONA BENGALURU ROAD. DAVANAGERE 577 002. 7. SRI. R.H. RAMAN S/O SR. R.S HANUMANTHARAJU AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, HANUMANTHAPPA BUILDING POONA BENGALURU ROAD, DAVANAGERE 577002. 8. SMT. R.V. JAYALAKSHMI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, HANUMANTHAPPA BUILDING POONA BENGALURU ROADM, DAVANAGERE 577 002. (BY SRI.M.S. RAJENDRA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R8 SRI. RAJAKUMAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) ...RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13073 WP No. 8898 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8161 of 2022 FOR RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE R2 AND R3 AUTHORITIES; SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED 29.03.2022 BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND IMPUGNED DATED 29.03.2022 BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND IMPUGNED REJECTED ORDER DATED 12.10.2021 PASSED BY THE R3 AUTHORITY VIDE ANNEXURE-B. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER These petitions are filed calling in question the jurisdictional Regional Commissioner's Order dated 22.02.2022 in ENT (Appeal) No.1/2020 (Annexure-A in W.P. No.8898/2022) and the order dated 29.03.2022 in ENT (Appeal) No.5/2021 (Annexure-A in W.P. No.8161/2022) under Section 10 of the Karnataka Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1964 [for short, 'the Cinema Act']. It is seen from a copy of this order that this appeal is connected with the appeal in ENT [Appeal] No.1/2021 filed by the fifth respondent. The jurisdictional Regional Commissioner has allowed - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13073 WP No. 8898 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8161 of 2022 this appeal, and there is no reference to the petitioner's appeal in ENT [Appeal] No.1/2020. However, the petitioner has called in question the jurisdiction Regional Commissioner's order referring to the ENT [Appeal] No.1/2021. As such, the merits of the jurisdictional Regional Commissioner's opinion on the petitioner's request for renewal of cinema license is examined for final disposal. 2. The jurisdictional Regional Commissioner [the second respondent], by the impugned Orders dated 22.02.2022 and 29.03.2022, has allowed the private respondents’ appeal setting aside the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner's Orders dated 18.02.2021 in No. ENT/CR/71/1999-2000 and the Endorsement dated 12.10.2021 in No.ENT/CR/17/1999-2000. The jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner by these orders has permitted renewal of subject Cinema License in favour of the petitioner under the Karnataka Cinemas [Regulation] - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13073 WP No. 8898 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8161 of 2022 Rules, 2014 (for short, 'the Cinema Rules'). The details of the orders of the Deputy Commissioner and the second respondent and the corresponding writ petitions are as follows:- Writ Petition Nos. Deputy Commissioner's Order/ Endorsement 8898/2022 No.ENT/CR/71/ 1999-2000 dated 18.02.20211 Regional Commissioner's Order No.ENT/APPEAL/01/ 2021 C/w. No.ENT/ APPEAL/01/2020 dated 22.02.2022 [Annexure – B] [Annexure – A] 8161/2022 No.ENT/CR/17/ 1999-2000 dated 12.10.2021 [Annexure – B] No.ENT/APPEAL/05/ 2021 29.03.2022 dated [Annexure – A] 2. The petitioner is the lessee in possession of the immovable property which has two Cinema Houses run under the name and style of Pushpanjali and Padmanjali. The private respondents have 1 The petitioner has also challenged the earlier Endorsement as per Annexure-Q which is dated 18.12.2020 informing the petitioner that his application for renewal is deferred. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:13073 WP No. 8898 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8161 of 2022 executed the lease agreement/s and the lease period under such agreement/s has expired, and the question that has been considered by the second respondent is, whether the Cinema License must be renewed if the lease period has expired. The second respondent has relied upon Regulation 5 of the 2014 Rules to opine that it would be incumbent on the petitioner to produce title documents to be entitled for renewal of license, and because the petitioner cannot dispute that the lease period has expired, the Deputy Commissioner could not have granted renewal. 3. It is undisputed that the private respondents have begun suits for the petitioner's eviction from the subject property after issuance of notice under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and that these suits are pending consideration. This Court must observe that whether there is a due termination of lease, in case the private - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:13073 WP No. 8898 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8161 of 2022 respondents assert breach and forfeiture or due termination of the lease even otherwise under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, must be considered in the pending suits based on the rival pleadings. As such, the question for consideration in these petitions will be: Whether a lessee could seek renewal of Cinema License under the Cinema Act and the 2014 Rules, and if such lessee could, whether he would be disentitled in law for renewal because the lease period has expired, or because the lease is terminated. 4. The second respondent has examined this question only in the light of Rule 5 of the Cinema Rules without considering the provisions of Section 5 of the Cinema Act. Section 5 of the Cinema Act2 2 Licence for exhibition of cinematograph films.- (1) Any person, who intends to give exhibition by means of a cinematograph in a place shall make an application in writing to the licensing authority for a licence therefor, together with such particulars as may be prescribed. (2) The licensing authority may, thereupon, after consulting such authority or officer as may be prescribed and - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:13073 WP No. 8898 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8161 of 2022 states that if any person who intends to exhibit Cinema, must apply in writing for license together with details [the particulars] as prescribed, and in terms of Rule 5 of the Cinema Rules3, the applicant is required to produce before the Licensing Authority necessary records relating to ownership of the premises. 5. This Court is of the considered view that the right to apply for Cinema License or renewal thereof is confined only to the landowner and that if the applicant can show that he/she has derived the subject to the provisions of this Act, and the rules made thereunder, grant the licence to such person and on such terms and conditions and subject to such restrictions as it may determine. (3) Where the licensing authority refuses to grant the licence, it shall do so by an order communicated to the applicant, giving the reasons for such refusal. 3 Records relating to ownership of Site, Building and Equipment to be produced: The applicant for the licence shall produce before the Licensing Authority necessary reocrds relating to ownership of the premises, including site, building and other equipment required to issue or renewal of licence. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:13073 WP No. 8898 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8161 of 2022 right to exhibit Cinema under the landowner, that person would be entitled to file an application. It would therefore follow that a lessee who has a valid lease to exhibit Cinema, can apply. The next aspect of the question being considered is, whether on the expiry of the lease period or earlier termination, the tenant loses the right to seek renewal. 6. The rights of a tenant whose lease is terminated either on expiry or because of termination are too settled, and the tenant who faces the consequence of termination is entitled to agitate the fact of termination and until there is a complete adjudication on such question in a duly constituted proceedings, he/she is entitled to continue in possession of the property. This right shall also be available to a tenant who is exhibiting Cinema under the properly constituted Lease Deed unless it is shown that certain provisions either in the Cinema Act or the Cinema Rules restricts the same. This - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:13073 WP No. 8898 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8161 of 2022 Court must record that the learned counsel for the respondents cannot point out any provision either in the Cinema Act or Cinema Rules from which this Court could even infer such restriction. 7. Therefore, this Court must hold, in answer to the question framed, that merely because the lease term has expired or lease is otherwise determined and the suits are pending in that regard, the concerned tenants refused the renewal of a Cinema License. When the merits of the second respondent's orders are thus examined, this Court must hold that such orders cannot be sustained and must be set quashed. However, given the circumstances, this Court must restore the proceedings to the second respondent for expeditious disposal to examine other aspects and decide whether there must be an interference with the Deputy Commissioner's Orders granting renewal of license. Hence, the following:- NC: 2025:KHC:13073 WP No. 8898 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8161 of 2022 - 14 -
Decision
ORDER [a] The petitions are allowed in part. [b] The second respondent's impugned Order dated 22.02.2022 in ENT (Appeal) No.1/2020 (Annexure-A in W.P. No.8898/2022) and the order dated 29.03.2022 in ENT (Appeal) No.5/2021 (Annexure-A in W.P. No.8161/2022) are quashed restoring the appeal proceedings to the second respondent for due consideration in the light of this Court's observation. [c] The petitioner and the private respondents shall appear before the second respondent without further notice on 29.04.2025 or on any such other date as may be indicated by the second respondent on 29.04.2025. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:13073 WP No. 8898 of 2022 C/W WP No. 8161 of 2022 [d] The second respondent is called upon to dispose of the appeal on merits as aforesaid within the next two months. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-