Order: Notice of motion has been ordered by this court on 11-7-1989 when the writ petition came up for admission. In response thereto, Mr. V.N. Mohanraj, learned counsel appears for the third respondent and a counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the third respondent. 2. By consent of the learned counsel on both sides, the writ petition itself is taken up final disposal today. 3. The short facts of the case are: - The third respondent was granted a ‘No Objection Certificate’ to run a touring talkies in S.No.740/2, Veda-ranyam in the year 1977. ‘C’ from licence was granted to him on yearly basis. The survey number in which the theater is situate was the subject matter of proceedings under the Inam Abolition Act, 1963 and on 18-4-77, the Settlement Tahsildar granted patta with respect to the said survey number in favour of Sri Vedaranyeswarar Devasthanam, Vedaranyam. When the matter reached the Inam Abolition Tribunal, the Tribunal held against the Devasthanam and therefore against the decision of the Tribunal, the Devasthanam preferred STA No.51 of 1981 before this court. 4. A Division Bench of this Court by judgement, dt.9-8-1988 allowed the appeal of the Devasthanam affirming the order of the Settlement Tahsildar granting patta in favour of the Devasthanam on the ground that the appeal filed before the Tribunal was misconceived. A serious of proceedings and writ petitions have-come to be filed by the petitioner and the third respondent before this Court. 5. On 14-8-85 the petitioner obtained a ‘No Objection Certificate’ for running a permanent theater and on 14-1-88, ‘C’ form licence was granted to the petitioner's theater. The third respondent filed W.P.No.12326 of 1987 challenging the imposition of the condition by the Collector directing her to stop the running of the touring talkies as and when the permanent theater commenced its shows. It is alleged in the affidavit of the petitioner that on 21-1-1988, the petitioner started running the permanent theater. On 25-5- 88 ‘E’ form permit was granted to the third respondent on month to month basis and on 9-8-1988, the third respondent filed an application before the Collector for permission for re-starting the talkies and for the grant of ‘C’ form licence or ‘E’ form permit. On 5-9-1988, the Government rejected the prayer for grant of ‘E’ form permit. On 25-5- 88 ‘E’ form permit was granted to the third respondent on month to month basis and on 9-8-1988, the third respondent filed an application before the Collector for permission for re-starting the talkies and for the grant of ‘C’ form licence or ‘E’ form permit. On 5-9-1988, the Government rejected the prayer for grant of ‘E’ form permit. On 9-11-88, the Collector also rejected the request of the third respondent for grant of ‘E’ form permit. On 16-11-88, the third respondent preferred W.P.No.118854 of 1988 challenging the orders of the Government and the Collector dated 5-9-1988 and 9-11-1988 rejecting the requesting for grant of ‘ C’ form licence and ‘E’ form permit. 6. The said writ petition was heard by me fully and after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel on both sides when I have nearly finished dictating the order, the learned counsel for the petitioner (3rd respondent herein) sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. I have gone into the merits of the matter though it was dismissed as withdrawn at the last minute on the representation made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Thereafter, the third respondent herein filed W.P.No.15940 of 1988 for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the Government to exempt the third respondent fromR.14(2)of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter called the Rules). That writ petition was also dismissed with a direction to the Government to dispose of the application of the third respondent for exemptioa Thereafter, a writ appeal in W.A.No.91 of 1989 was preferred by the third respondent against the order in W.P.No.15940 of 1988. That writ appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter, the Government took up for consideration the application filed by the third respondent for exemption from the provisions of R.14(2) of the Rules and has passed the impugned order. 7. I find from the impugned order that an application to the Government for exemption fromR.14(2)of the Rules was filed by the 3rd respondent on 14-8-1988 even before the dismissal of the writ petition W.P.No.13854 of 1988 by this Court on 12-12-1988. The petitioner has sent petitions to the Government on 26-8-1988, 29-8-1988, 21-9-1988, 15-12-88 and 27-3-1989. It is stated in the impugned order that the report of the Collector was against the third respondent. So also was the report of the Commissioner of Land Administration. The petitioner has sent petitions to the Government on 26-8-1988, 29-8-1988, 21-9-1988, 15-12-88 and 27-3-1989. It is stated in the impugned order that the report of the Collector was against the third respondent. So also was the report of the Commissioner of Land Administration. However, the petitioner herein has been asked to file any further objection petition and accordingly she filed another objection petition on 27-3-1989. In that petition she has stated that in view of the judgment of this court in W.P.No.13854 of 1988, the third respondent is not the lawful owner and she is not in lawful possession of the property in R.S.No.740/2. It seems that the third respondent also filed another petition on 9-3-1989 to exempt her from the provisions of R.14(2) of the Rules. 8. After considering the petitions, the government took the view that on adequacy basis one more theater can be licensed. Accordingly, Exemption from the provisions of Rules 13 and 14(2) of the Rules has been granted in favour of the third respondent enabling her to run the Swasthik Travelling Talkies located at Vedaranyam. The order stated that the exemption will be effective for a period of five years or till the civil suit field by the Devasthanam is disposed of, whichever is earlier. 9. Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the impugned order is vitiated on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and as there was no petition before the government by the third Respondent requesting for exemption from the provisions of Rule 13, the impugned order is without jurisdiction. The learned counsel contends that the power granted under Sec.11 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Act, 1955 is coupled with duty and the government has not applied its mind while passing the impugned order and, at any rate, no exemption from the provisions of Rule 14(2) can be granted in favour of the third respondent on adequacy basis. 10. Mr. Mohanraj, learned counsel for the third respondent, contends that since the petitioner has been given a fair opportunity by the government and since even the issue regarding lawful possession of the third respondent has been raised by the petitioner in her objection petition dt.27-3-1989, it cannot be said that no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. According to the learned counsel, though technically no application was filed by the third respondent seeking exemption from the provisions of Rule 13, the issue which Was raised before the government covered both Rules 13 and 14(2), and, in fact, the petitioner has submitted her objections with regard to the grant of exemption from the provisions of Rule 13 also. 11. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel on both sides, I am of the view that the first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is violation of the principles of natural justice has to fail. I find that in her objection petition dt.27-3-1989 which was in response to the notice given by the government, the petitioner has clearly raised the issue regarding the lawful possession of the property. As such, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not aware of the issue that was considered by the government. It is true that there was no proper application filed by the third respondent before the government seeking exemption from the provisions of Rule 13 of the Rules, But, a reading of the impugned order clearly shows that the question of grant of exemption from the provisions of both Rule 13 and Rule 14(2) has been considered by the government after receiving objections from the petitioner as well, though in the petition dated 9-3-1989 filed by the third respondent, the relief asked for was only for exemption from the provisions of Rule 14(2) of Rules. As such, I am of the view that the impugned order cannot be said to be vitiated on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. 12. But the most important question that arises for consideration is whether the third respondent is in lawful possession of the property in question. It cannot be disputed that patta has been granted in respect of the property in question in favour of the Devasthanam by the Settlement Tahsildar though a revision filed against the grant of patta by the third respondent is pending before the re-visional authority after the dismissal of STA.No.51 of 1981 by a Division Bench of this Court. In other words, as on date patta stands in the name of the Devasthanam. It cannot also be disputed that a suit filed by the Devasthanam against the third respondent for possession of the property's also pending. In other words, as on date patta stands in the name of the Devasthanam. It cannot also be disputed that a suit filed by the Devasthanam against the third respondent for possession of the property's also pending. According to the impugned order, the third respondent and the Devasthanam are in joint possession of the property (under-lining is mine). Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulation) Rules, 1957 reads as follows: “If the applicant for the licence is the owner of the site, building and equipment, he shall produce to the licensing authority the necessary records relating to his ownership and possession there of. If he is not the owner, he shall, to the satisfaction of the licensing authority, produce documentary evidence to show that he is in lawful possession of the site, building and equipment”. 13. An argument is put forward before me to the effect that the super structure belongs to the third respondent and I find from the impugned order that the government also proceeded on that footing. It is not disputed that the superstructure belongs to the third respondent. But, the fact remains that she is not in lawful possession, (emphasis supplied). So long as the patta granted I by the Settlement Tahsildar in favour of the Devasthanam Stands, in my view, the third respondent cannot be said to be in lawful possession of the site. May be, she is in lawful possession of the superstructure. 14. The Supreme Court has an occasion to consider the question as to what is lawful possession in M. C. chockalingam v. Manickavasagam (1974) 2 MLJ. (S.C.) 27;(1974) 2 MLJ. (S.C.)27 while considering the very same rules as are involved in this case. The Supreme Court held as follows: “Lawful possession is not litigious possession and must have some foundation in a legal right to possess the property which cannot be equated with at temporary right to enforce recovery of the property in case a person is wrongfully or forcibly dispossessed from it. Juridical possession is possession protected by law against wrongful dispossession but cannot per se always be equated with lawful possession”. Juridical possession is possession protected by law against wrongful dispossession but cannot per se always be equated with lawful possession”. In view of this categorical pronouncement of the Supreme Court with regard to the issue as to what is lawful possession with reference to Rule 13 of the Rules, I am not in a position to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the third respondent that the third respondent is in lawful possession of the site in question. So, I am of the view that the impugned order stating that the Devasthanam and the third respondent are in joint possession of the properties is erroneous in law. What is required is “lawful possession” of the site. If Rule 13 of the Rules is considered in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, the impugned order cannot stand especially when it states that the third respondent and the Devasthanam are in joint possession of the properties. Nowhere in the Act or the Rules either “joint possession” or “adequacy” is contemplated. I do not think that exemption from Rule 14(2)can be granted on the ground of “adequacy”, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. On this ground also the impugned order has to go. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. R.S.----- Petition allowed.