G. C. BHARUKA, J. ( 1 ) THE appellant is a partnership firm running cinema exhibition business under the name Vinoda Talkiesat Tiptur, Tumkur District. It has preferred this appeal against the order of the learned single Judge dated 28-5-1999 in substance directing the appellant to produce a valid lease agreement in respect of the site over which it is carrying on business, by 7-6-99 for the purpose of renewal and/or grant of cinema licence under the provisions of the Karnataka Cinema Regulations, Act, 1964 (The Act for short) and the Karnataka Cinema Regulation Rules, 1971 (The Rules for short ). ( 2 ) IT is not disputed that the premises over which the cinema business is being carried on belongs to Kalleswaraswamy Temple which is a Muzarai institution governed by the Karnataka Religious and Charitable Institutions Act, 1927. The said premises was given on lease to the appellants under Government Order No. RD 44 MLI 70 dated 27-1-1971 for a period upto 16-1-1996. Based on the said lease hold right, the appellant obtained licence under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, but since it got the licence renewed for a period beyond the date of expiry of the lease, that is, upto 7-6-97, the District Magistrate, Tumkur, having learnt about the said fact of misrepresentation, cancelled the licence under his order dated 17-10-1996 (Annexure-H to the writ petition ). In the said order, while forwarding a copy to the Assistant Commissioner, he directed him to take possession of the premises. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred W. P. No. 29160/96 in which the impugned order has been passed. At the time of admission of the writ petition, an interim order was granted by this Court staying the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner whereby they had no existing licence in their favour enabling them to carry on their cinema business, but still continued the same. Rule 6 of the Rules reads as under :'records Relating to ownership or possession to site Building or Equipment to be produced. If the applicant for licence is the owner of the site, building or equipment he shall produce before the licensing authority necessary records relating to his ownership and possession. Rule 6 of the Rules reads as under :'records Relating to ownership or possession to site Building or Equipment to be produced. If the applicant for licence is the owner of the site, building or equipment he shall produce before the licensing authority necessary records relating to his ownership and possession. If he is not the owner, he shall produce to the satisfaction of the licensing authority, documentary evidence in proof of his lawful possession of the site, building or the equipment. " ( 3 ) FROM the above rule, it is clear that a person cannot the granted licence unless he produces documentary evidence in proof of his lawful possession of the site, building or equipment. In the case of M. C. Chockalingam v. Manickavasagam, AIR 1974 SC 104 , while considering a similar provision regarding grant licence under the Madras Cinema Regulation Rules, 1957, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under : (para 14)"mr. Gupte strenuously submits that 'lawful possession' cannot be divorced from affirmative, positive legal right to possess a property and since the lease had expired by efflux of time, the tenant in this case had no legal right to continue possession. In the context of Rule 13, we are clearly of the opinion that the tenant on the expiry of the lease cannot be said to continue in lawful possession of the property against the wishes of the landlord if such possession is not otherwise statutorily protected under law against even lawful eviction through Court process, such as under the Rent Control Act. S. 6 of the S. R. Act does not offer such protection, but only as stated earlier forbids forcible dispossession even with the best of title. ' ( 4 ) IN the present appeal, it is not in dispute that the lease granted to the appellant firm has already expired on 16-1-1996 and therefore they cannot be said to be in lawful possession of the premises in question enabling them to even make an application for grant and/or renewal of licence in terms of Rule 6 of the Rules. It may be of further importance here to note that the Karnataka Rent Control Act, 1961, also cannot come to the rescue of the appellant because S. 2 (7) (iii) of the said Act clearly makes the provisions thereof inapplicable to Muzral institutions or religious or charitable institutions under the management of the State Government. ( 5 ) FURTHER, S. 3 of the Religious and Charitable Institutions Act clearly provides that the Government is the chief controlling authority in respect of all matters connected with Muzarai institutions. Moreover, according to S. 5 of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner of the district is the immediate controlling authority in respect of Muzrai institutions in the district. ( 6 ) KEEPING in view the above aspects and the law declared by the Supreme Court, it can unhesitatingly be concluded and held that after 16-1-1996, the occupation of the site by the appellant over which the cinema building was constructed and equipments are installed, was not lawful and as such, they were not entitled to grant and/or renewal of the licence under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, unless they could have shown that the lease has been renewed in accordance with law. ( 7 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .