A. B. MURGOD, J. ( 1 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 in original suit no. 4092 of 1980 are the appellants before this court and the plaintiffs in that suit no. 4092 of 1980 are respondents 1 to 5. Defendants 3 and 4 in the trial court are respondents 6 and 7 in this appeal. The parties are hereinafter referred by their ranks in the trial court in this appeal for the sake of convenience. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF No. 1 is the husband of plaintiff No. 2 and plaintiffs 3 to 5 are their children. They instituted the suit alleging that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the owners of the cinema theatre known as "opera house" (new opera talkies) municipal old no. 24, residency road, Bangalore and new no. 57 (old no. 101), brigade road, civil station, Bangalore and also All the machineries, projectors, generators, electric motor, electrical fittings, screens, etc. , in the said theatre more fully described in the schedule to the plaint. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 under the lease deeds dated 27-9-1975 and 1-10-1975 had leased out the schedule theatre with the machineries and fixtures to the defendants 1 and 2 till 31-8-1978. On the request of the defendants 1 and 2, the plaintiffs granted a grace period of three months to wind up their business of exhibiting the pictures by the agreement dated 9-9-1978 till 30-11-1978 to vacate the schedule theatre with machineries, projectors, etc. , and to hand over the same to the plaintiffs. By the letter dated 11-9-1978 with concurrence of the defendants 1 and 2, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 intimated the deputy commissioner to renew the licence only for a period of three months till 30-11-1978 and he accordingly renewed the licence. By the letter dated 29-7-1978, the plaintiffs intimated the defendants 1 and 2 to vacate the schedule premises on 31-8-1978 and they also got issued through their advocate, a registered legal notice dated 26-10-1978 calling on them to hand over the possession of the premises on or after the midnight of 30th november, 1978 after which date the defendants have no authority to continue in possession of the property. ( 3 ) PLAINTIFF no. ( 3 ) PLAINTIFF no. 3 is the son and plaintiffs 4 and 5 are the daughters of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 and they are the owners of the furniture and fittings in the plaint schedule property and by three separate written agreements dated 10-10-1975 have leased out the furniture and fittings in the schedule theatre to the defendants 1 and 2 and have also terminated the tenancy of the defendants 1 and 2 in respect of the furniture and fittings by a registered notice dated 24-10-1978 and asked them to hand over possession on or after the midnight of 30-11-1978. Defendants 1 and 2 have replied the notice on 2/3-11-1978 and have illegally and without authorisation continued in possession of the plaint schedule property. ( 4 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 by a written agreement dated 11-10-1978 have sub-leased the plaint schedule properties to the defendant no. 3 illegally and without authorisation and without the knowledge of the plaintiffs and therefore also the plaintiffs have become entitled to the possession of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs averred that the defendants 1 and 2 have sub-leased for running the morning shows the schedule premises to defendant no. 4 by an agreement dated 16-6-1978 and have thus forfeited their rights. ( 5 ) IT is averred that defendants 1 and 2 by themselves or through their agents are continuing in illegal possession and have been exhibiting the films unauthorisedly and have gone to the extent of charging the machineries belonging to the plaintiffs to an extent of Rs. 35,000/- without any authority in that behalf. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 had leased out the property with the machineries, projectors, etc. , to defendants 1 and 2 on rental of Rs. 2,750/- per month and the plaintiffs 3 to 5 have leased out the furniture and fittings to defendants 1 and 2 on the rental of Rs. 1,000/- per month and the rent being above Rs. 5007- per month, the rent control act is not applicable and the court had jurisdiction to try the suit. ( 6 ) THE plaintiffs alleged that defendants 1 and 2 are in arrears of rent and are also liable to pay damages for use and occupation of the premises and they limited their claim to Rs. 10,000/- of which Rs. 5007- per month, the rent control act is not applicable and the court had jurisdiction to try the suit. ( 6 ) THE plaintiffs alleged that defendants 1 and 2 are in arrears of rent and are also liable to pay damages for use and occupation of the premises and they limited their claim to Rs. 10,000/- of which Rs. 3,7507- are on account of arrears for the period from 30-10-1978 to 30-11-1978 and by way of past mesne profits, Rs. 6,250/- from 30-11-1978 to 20-1-1979 the date of suit. They thus prayed for (1) declaring that the defendants are not entitled in the eye of law to exhibit the picture in the schedule property after the midnight of 30th november, 1978; (2) a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 4 from exhibiting any films after the midnight of 30th november, 1978; (3) possession of the suit schedule property with All the machineries, projectors, generators, electrical fittings, electrical motor, screen, furniture and other fittings, etc. ; (4) any other relief deemed fit in the circumstances of the case; and (5) a decree for Rs. 10,000/- for the period from 30-10-1978 to the date of the suit and an order directing enquiry into the future mesne profits under order 20, rule 12, c. p. c. till the date of delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. ( 7 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 contested the suit with the following averments: plaintiffs 1 and 2 are not the owners of the theatre as such. They are the co-owners along with other legal heirs of late c. s. krishna chetty in respect of the building known as 'opera house' and not as a theatre. They are not the absolute owners as far as machineries, projectors, generators, electric motor, electrical fittings, screen and other movables, including the furnitures, etc. Found in the theatre. Defendants 1 and 2 are the absolute owners of the same. The building was taken on lease by the father of defendants 1 and 2 rao sahib S. V. v. Govindarajan, in the year 1945 and he converted it as a theatre after obtaining a valid licence and after purchasing the equipments necessary for running the theatre. After his death at a partition, the theatre fell to the share of the defendants 1 and 2. After his death at a partition, the theatre fell to the share of the defendants 1 and 2. Defendants 1 and 2 are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the theatre as the owners of All the movables including the materials, machineries, projectors, electrical motors, electrical fittings, etc. Defendants 1 and 2 made the necessary deposits in the k. e. b. and electrical installations stand in their name. By misrepresentation and by playing a fraud on the defendants, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 got the alleged lease deeds. Defendants 1 and 2 never agreed to take the movables on the lease nor they executed any lease deed to that effect. Without allowing the defendants 1 and 2 to go through the papers, by playing a fraud, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 have obtained certain signatures. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 or plaintiffs 3 to 5 are not the owners of the movables. Defendants 1 and 2 never asked for grace time. The averments in that behalf are denied. Inspite of the efforts made by the plaintiffs to close down the theatre, the district magistrate renewed the licence in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 and the appeal by the plaintiffs 1 and 2 to the divisional commissioner proved unsuccessful. Exchange of notices is admitted. But the contention that the defendants have not any right to continue in possession and that they are trespassers is denied. The tenancy of defendants 1 and 2 is not at All terminated in accordance with law. Their tenancy commences from second of each english calender month and ends on the first of the succeeding month.-the suit for ejectment is misconceived. There are no agreements between the plaintiffs 3 to 5 and defendants 1 and 2 and even if there are such agreements they are fabricated ones. The allegations of sub-letting the theatre under the written consent of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are denied. Agreement between defendants 1 and 2 and defendant no. 4 was rescinded long ago and even if it existed it was only for supplying the pictures and an agreement to supply pictures does not amount to sub-lease. The allegations of sub-letting the theatre under the written consent of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 are denied. Agreement between defendants 1 and 2 and defendant no. 4 was rescinded long ago and even if it existed it was only for supplying the pictures and an agreement to supply pictures does not amount to sub-lease. Defendants 1 and 2 are the tenants and their tenancy has not been terminated and the deputy commissioner has granted licence in their favour and they are running the theatre and the plaintiffs cannot claim possession of the theatre and they are not entitled to any relief. The cause of action for the plaintiffs 1 and 2 is different from the cause of action alleged by the plaintiffs 3 to 5. There is misjoinder of cause of action and the suit is liable to be dismissed. There is also misjoinder of parties and the suit is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 are not entitled to the relief claimed in the plaint. The machineries, electrical fittings, projectors, electrical meters, screen are the absolute properties of the defendants 1 and 2 and the plaintiffs have no claim over the same. The defendants 1 and 2 have spent lakhs of rupees for the improvement of the building and unless that amount spent on improvement is paid to them, the plaintiffs have no right to ask for any injunction, as they have specifically agreed to pay the improvement charges at the time of re-delivering the possession. The other heirs of late krishna chetty have filed the suit for declaration and possession in original suit no. 475 of 1964 and it is pending decision. The legal representatives of the late c. s. krishna chetty are the necessary parties in the above suit. For non-joinder of the parties, the suit is liable to be dismissed. ( 8 ) BY an Amendment to the written statement, the defendants1 and 2 took up the plea that the suit is not maintainable in the court in view of section 31 of the Karnataka rent control act had been struck down and the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the same was liable to be dismissed. ( 9 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 filed the additional written statement contending that they were not in arrears of Rs. ( 9 ) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 filed the additional written statement contending that they were not in arrears of Rs. 3,750/- and they were not liable to pay mesne profits by way of damages for use and occupation as claimed. They contended that upto the date of the suit, they had paid the rent at the agreed rate and they had also paid once again the rent from 1-11-1978 and plaintiffs had received the same and their claim for Rs. 10,000/- was unsustainable, 1. 0. Plaintiffs filed a reply to the amended portion of the written statement and contended that striking down of section 31 of the Karnataka rent control act had no bearing upon the cinema theatre and the lease of the plaint schedule property which was a well equipped permanent cinema theatre with All the equipments i. e. , machineries, fixtures, furniture and fittings, etc. Constituted a composite lease and the same could not be construed to be a mere ordinary tenancy of a building and therefore, the provisions of the Karnataka rent control act had no application and the suit was maintainable before the civil court. 11. Defendant no. 3 did not file any statement, but defendant no. 4 filed a statement contending that defendants 1 and 2 had approached him on 9-6-1978 for taking morning shows of new opera for exhibiting pictures in morning show on residency road, bangalore-25, and by mutual consent, an agreement-deed was written and he had paid Rs. 3,000/- in the presence of witnesses as advance by cheque, but there was no co-operation by the defendants 1 and 2 in conducting the morning shows and they also demanded loans to pay taxes. Defendants 1 and 2 failed to repay the loans and resorted to coercive, violent and intimidative methods and the staff of the talkies did not co-operate. Defendants 1 and 2 have stepped into the shoes of the plaintiffs for causing belief that they are the owners of the new opera with mala fide intention of grabbing money from the innocent customers and have cheated defendant no. 4, without disclosing the true facts. They have caused great loss to defendant no. 4. Defendant no. 4 has lodged complaints to shoolay police. The defendants 1 and 2 had kept defendant no. 4 in ignorance about the expiry of the lease by 30-11-1978. 4, without disclosing the true facts. They have caused great loss to defendant no. 4. Defendant no. 4 has lodged complaints to shoolay police. The defendants 1 and 2 had kept defendant no. 4 in ignorance about the expiry of the lease by 30-11-1978. Defendants 1 and 2 are guilty of misrepresentation of facts, cheating and breach of contract. Defendant no. 4 prayed the applicant had sent form 'a' under certificate of posting, an inference has to be drawn that respondent-1 has received the same and that has to be considered. But, the said decision will not help the applicant as the case of respondent-1 in this application is that the applicant did not indicate his preference in the application itself as he was required to do and the question of indicating his preference in form 'a' and sending it under certificate of posting would not cure the defect of not indicating his preference in the application form itself, as the 1986 Rules required consideration of selection only to the posts as per the preference indicated in the application. Since the applicant has filed to indicate his preference in the application form itself, as he was required to do, we do not think that we can support his claim for selection to the posts for which he did not indicate his preference in the application form. 7, therefore, we do not find any merit in this application and it is dismissed. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .