- (1.) M. Katju and P. K. Jain, JJ. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mool Behari Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 to 10.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the order dated 30- 6-97 passed by the Commissioner, Entertainment Tax, U. P. and for commanding the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 not to forcibly evict the petitioner from the premises of the Cinema hall in question on the basis of the aforesaid order. It appears that there is a cinema hall known as 'kamla talkies' in the city of Jaun-pur in respect of which a licence was issued to respondent No. 5 under the U. P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955. Both the petitioner as well as respondent No. 5 had applied for a licence for running the cinema, but the ap plication of respondent No. 5 was allowed and that of the petitioner was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed writ petition No. 12865 of 1997 Anil Kumar Singh v. District Magistrate/licensing Authority, Jaunpur and others which was dis missed by a division bench of this Court on 15-4-1997, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-io to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner can not be dispossessed as he has entered into an agreement dated 28-1-97 with respondent No. 5, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In the said agreement it is stated that since the licensee is unable to look after the premises she had asked the other party in the agreement (the present petitioner) to run the cinema as a Managing agent. On the basis of this agree ment the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a lessee and he can not be evicted from the said premises.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to Section 2 (b) and (c) of the U. P. Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955. Section 2 (b) states:- "occupier" includes a managing agent or other person authorised to represent the occupier or having charge, management or control of the place on his behalf. " Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an occupier in view of the above provision. This defini tion itself indicates that the petitioner being a managing agent, is not a person having charge, management or control of the cinema on his own behalf, rather it is on behalf of his principal (the licensee ). Sec tion 2 (c) states as follows:- "owner" used with reference to any place includes any persons receiving or entitled to receive the rent from the occupier. " The above definition indicates that the owner of the building in which a cinema is being run may be different from a licensee. A licensee may be the tenant of the building, and he may be paying rent to the owner of the building. The cinema is run by the licen see, and not necessarily by the owner of the building.;