Judgment :- VEERASWAMI 1. R. 63(1) of the Madras Cinemas Regulation Rules, 1957, provided for the minimum width of gangways, to wit, four feet. The amended rule came into force from 22nd January 1954. But, on 27th February, 1960, the rule was made subject to an exception which reads; “The Government.. direct that so far as those cinemas are concerned, tin rule regarding the minimum width of gangways should be insisted upon only when the cinema buildings are renovated, altered or rebuilt”. The reference is to the existing cinema theatres. In the early part of 1969, the appellant did away with benches and provided chairs instead, cushioning the same; the appellant also provided more ceiling fans and exhausts. On the ground that the appellant had provided additional facilities and also Incurred expenditure thereon, it applied for increased rates for the entire seating arrangement in the theatre. This the Commissioner of Police refused and the Board of Revenue declined to interfere with his order. Palaniswami, J. thought that removal of the bench pattern seats, renovation of the entire furniture and cushioning most of the chairs, providing independent power pump for pumping, storing and supplying tap water for drinking purposes, installation of ten big industrial type exhaust fans to cool the auditorium during the performances, addition of a number of ceiling fans, provision of two powerful blowers to blow fresh air into the auditorium, as well as several mercury flood lights, all these amounted to renovation and alteration of the cinema building. He took that view apparently having regard to the phraseology employed by R. 77, which deals with the necessity for sanction by the licensing authority for addition or alteration to the premises in respect of which a licence had been granted or to any party thereof. The learned Judge on that view declined to interfere. 2. In our opinion, the changes aforementioned brought about in the theatre cannot be said to be a renovation, alteration or rebuilding of the cinema building. Renovation should be to the building itself and so too alteration. But removal of certain pattern of seats and provision of different seats as chairs, renovation of furniture etc., provision of more lights, powerful blowers and exhausts and also ceiling fans cannot in any sense be regarded as a renovation of the building or alteration of the building as such. Renovation should be to the building itself and so too alteration. But removal of certain pattern of seats and provision of different seats as chairs, renovation of furniture etc., provision of more lights, powerful blowers and exhausts and also ceiling fans cannot in any sense be regarded as a renovation of the building or alteration of the building as such. On that view of the matter, therefore, we are unable to agree with the view of the Commissioner of Police, with whom the Board of Revenue had agreed, that this was a case to which the exemption provided by the Government order dated 27th February, 1960, did not apply. We consider that notwithstanding the change aforementioned which the appellant brought about, the exemption from R. 63(1) continues to apply to the appellant. 3. We may also mention that the reference to R. 77 by the learned Judge does not appear to be quite relevant. That relates to subsequent addition or alteration of the premises and the requirement of sanction of the licencing authority therefor. That does not by itself bear on fixation of the rates for seating. When more facilities or amenities were provided and expenditure was incurred by a theatre owner, that will be well a justification for altering the rates. In fact, that will be the primary relevant consideration for fixing the rates, and not merely a general renovation or alteration of the premises. 4. On that view, the appeal is allowed, and the order of the Commissioner, as also of the Board of Revenue, are quashed. Before leaving this matter, we may indicate that this has nothing to do with R. 77, and we have not dealt with it in this judgment. No costs.