JUDGMENT K.N. Seth, J. -The petitioners Behari Lal Kapoor and one Moti Lal Goyal are owners of Basant Cinema, situate at 21/148, City Station Road, Agra. According to the petitioner Basant Cinema was leased out to respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) for a period of five years under the lease deed dated 1-6-1966. During this period the Licensing Authority granted licence to the respondents to give cinematograph exhibition. For the year 1971 the petitioner along with his co-owner applied to the Licensing Authority to grant them a licence to give cinematograph exhibition after expiry of the lease in favour of the respondents. However, the licence granted to the respondents continued to be renewed from year to year. On 12-2-1973 the petitioner filed suit No. 6 of 1973 against the respondents for ejectment, possession and mesne profits principally on the ground that they were trespassers after expiry of the period of the lease. The petitioner continued to make applications for grant of a licence in his favour but the Licensing Authority continued to renew the licence granted to the respondents. Against the renewal of the licence in favour of the respondents for the year 1976-77 the petitioner filed a writ petition in this court (Civil Misc. Writ No. 4073 of 1976). It was dismissed on 25-4-1977 on the ground that the period of the licence had already expired on 31-3-1977 and consequently the petition had become in-fructuous. It was also held that the petitioner had an alternative remedy of filing an appeal. The present petition has been filed against the order of the Licensing Authority renewing the licence in favour of the respondents for the year 1978-79 and the order of the State Government dismissing the appeal of the petitioner directed against the aforesaid order of the Licensing Authority. The petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the G. O. dated 21-5-1971 and the orders of the Licensing Authority and the State Government as well as the licence granted to the respondents for the previous years as well as for the year 1978-79. A writ of mandamus has been prayed for directing the licensing Authority. Agra, to renew the licence of Basant Cinema, Agra, to the petitioner. A writ of mandamus has been prayed for directing the licensing Authority. Agra, to renew the licence of Basant Cinema, Agra, to the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ of prohibition directing the licensing Authority, Agra, not to renew the licence to exhibit films in Basant Cinema to the respondents. 2. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it has been asserted that they continued to be the lessees of Basant Cinema even after expiry of the period mentioned in the lease deed dated 1-6-1966 and are not trespassers as alleged by the petitioner. It is not necessary to mention in detail the facts and circumstances put forward in support of their stand. The stand taken by the State of Uttar Pradesh and the Licensing Authority is that the licence in favour of the respondents has been renewed from year to year in accordance with the provisions of the U. P. Cinematograph Rules. 1951 and the G. O. Dated 21-5-1971 issued by the State Government. 3. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondents that the petition has become in fructuous by lapse of time and the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this petition. Reliance in this connection has been placed on a decision of a Bench of this Court in Brij Bahadur Sarin v. District Magistrate, Agra (Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 5291 of 1974, decided on 25-4-1979). 4. The licence granted in favour of the respondents for the year 1978-79 came to an end on 31st March, 1979. It is true that this petition was filed while that licence was still operative but now no effective relief can possibly be granted to the petitioner by quashing the licence for the year 1978-79 or the licences granted for the earlier years. To that extent the petition has been rendered in-fructuous. 5. The relief for mandamus directing the Licensing Authority, Agra, to grant a licence in favour of the petitioner is wholly untenable. Admittedly the petitioner is not in possession or control of 'Basant Cinema. He may be one of the co-owners of Basant Cinema but so long he is not in a position to exhibit cinematograph films in that cinema the grant of a licence to him would be of no avail. It would be a mere waste paper. 6. Admittedly the petitioner is not in possession or control of 'Basant Cinema. He may be one of the co-owners of Basant Cinema but so long he is not in a position to exhibit cinematograph films in that cinema the grant of a licence to him would be of no avail. It would be a mere waste paper. 6. The prayer for a writ of prohibition or any other suitable order or direction of that nature to the Licensing Authority not to renew the licence in favour of the respondents is also unsustainable. Under the U. P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951 the Licensing Authority alone is competent to grant or renew a licence in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid rules. No question of issuing a writ of prohibition to him arises when he acts within his jurisdiction. It has not been shown that the Licensing Authority, Agra, is acting beyond the scope of his jurisdiction. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since in renewing the licence in favour of the respondents the Licensing Authority is acting on the basis of the G. O. Dated 21-5-1971, which is ultra vires and in future also the decision would be based on that Government order, the question of legality of that order may be adjudicated upon to provide a guideline for the subsequent years. Such a question, according to the Learned counsel for the petitioner, deserves to be considered in spite of the fact that the writ petition for quashing the licence may have become in-fructuous. In support of this contention reliance was placed on tho principle laid down in Messrs. Ghaio Mal and Sons v. State of Delhi ( AIR 1959 SC 65 ) and Suresh Chandra v. State of U. P. ( AIR 1977 All 515 (FB)). 8. In support of this contention reliance was placed on tho principle laid down in Messrs. Ghaio Mal and Sons v. State of Delhi ( AIR 1959 SC 65 ) and Suresh Chandra v. State of U. P. ( AIR 1977 All 515 (FB)). 8. Ordinarily we would have refrained from pronouncing upon the legality of the impugned G.O. in the present case but since the question of renewal of the licence in favour of the respondents has been raised year after year and even the earlier petition filed by the petitioner against the renewal of licence for the year 1976-77 was dismissed as having become in fructuous by lapse of time and this petition also with regard to the principal relief claimed by the petitioner has been rendered in fructuous on that very account, it may be desirable to deal with the contention raised by the petitioner for guidance in future when question of renewal of licence again arises. 9. The U.P. Cinematograph Rules, 1951 lay down the criteria and conditions for granting and renewing the licence-Rule 7 provides that no licence shall be granted or renewed in favour of any person unless (i) he or his agent appointed for the purpose referred to in R. 2 (vi) is residing in the city, town or area within whose limit the cinematograph exhibition is intended to be given and (ii) the Licensing Authority is satisfied that the requirements of these rules have been fully complied with. Various Rules lay down the requirements of buildings, electrical requirements, ventilation, sanitation, seating accommodation, exits, fire precautions, projection room, cinematograph machine, film storage etc. Before granting a licence the Licensing Authority is required to be satisfied that the requirements of these rules have been fully complied with. On being so satisfied the licence is issued in Form which is set out in Appendix . It provides that the licence shall be terminated forthwith if the licensee ceases to own, to hold on lease or to manage the licensed premises. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that a licence to exhibit cinematograph films could be granted only in favour of a person who was the owner or a lessee or a manager of the licensed premises and once such a person ceases to own. to hold on lease or to manage the licensed premises, the licence was liable to be terminated. to hold on lease or to manage the licensed premises, the licence was liable to be terminated. The Government G. O. dated 21-5-1971 was in conflict with the aforesaid condition of the licence. 10. The G.O. dated May 21, 1971 which replaced the earlier G.O. Dated March 29, 1971 dealing with the grant of cinema licence for permanent buildings provides a guideline to the Licensing Authority in cases in which there is dispute between the landlord and the tenant of a cinema building. It lays down the following criteria:- "1. Cinema licence shall not be granted to a rank trespasser i.e. a person whose possession over the building did not from its very inception have any legal basis. 2. A licence shall not be granted to a tenant/lessee holding over the demised premises after expiry of the lease if he has been declared to be a trespasser by court of law and such orders declaring him to be trespasser have not been finally set aside by a competent court of law. 3. Licences may be granted/renewed in favour of a tenant/lessee in possession if he has not been declared to be a trespasser by a competent court of law. 2. In all cases where a licence is grant ed under criterion (3) above, the licence shall be subject to the following conditions:- 1. That the licence will automatically cease to be in force as soon as the licensee is ejected from the premises, and 2. The Licensee indemnifies Government against any possible damages which the owner might claim. A separate indemnity bond, on a stamped paper, will have to be executed for this purpose. 3. These instructions are being issued on the basis of the experience gained during the period previous instructions have remained operative and taking into account some recent pronouncements oi Hon'ble High Court." Learned counsel contended that the G.O, in so far as it provides for grant/renewal in favour of a tenant/lessee in possession if he had not been declared to be a trespasser by a competent court of law is in conflict with the terms of the licence which provide that the licence shall be terminated forthwith if the licensee ceases to own, to hold on lease, or to manage the licenced premises. We find no merit in the contention. We find no merit in the contention. It is common knowledge that dispute between owners and lessees of licensed premises frequently arises with regard to the right of the lessee to continue to retain possession even on expiry of the term of the lease. The question whether the lessee has ceased to hold on ease the building in dispute is not always easy to decide. Various complicated questions of law and fact arise in such disputes. The District Magistrate as the Licensing Authority is not expected to satisfactorily decide these complicated and vexatious questions of fact and law. Unless these disputes are settled by a competent court of law it would not be possible for the Licensing Authority to proceed on the footing that the lessee has ceased to hold on lease the licensed premises. The cinematograph Licence is granted or renewed for short periods not exceeding one year. If the Licensing Authority is to embark on the investigation of title of the contending parties in most of the cases the period for which the licence is prayed for would expire and the application would be in-fructuous. During all this period the exhibition of cine' autograph films would cease and the State would lose considerable revenue and the public would be denied one of the most popular and cheap form of entertainment. In order to avoid such a situation, the State Government issued guidelines contained in the impugned G. O The guidelines do not run counter to the scheme of the Cinematograph Rules. The G. O. is in consonance with the entire scheme of the cinematograph Rules. Whether a lessee has ceased to hold on lease the licensed premises and is not entitled to the renewal of the licence in his favour has rightly been left to the decision of a competent Civil Court. If the licensee continues to be in possession of the licensed premises and is in a position to exhibit cinematograph films, his licence deserves to be renewed so long as he is not held to be a trespasser by a competent court of law. 11. Relying on the language of R. 7 it was contended that the rule is mandatory and unless the Licensing Authority is satisfied that the requirements of the rules have been complied with, he has no jurisdiction to grant a licence. 11. Relying on the language of R. 7 it was contended that the rule is mandatory and unless the Licensing Authority is satisfied that the requirements of the rules have been complied with, he has no jurisdiction to grant a licence. It was further urged that the satisfaction has to be of the licensing Authority and if he acts under the direction or dictation of another authority his action would be vitiated in law. There can be no doubt that before a licence can be granted, the licensing Authority has to be satisfied that the requirements of the rules have been fully complied with. It has not been established that in the present case the requirements of any of the rules about which reference has been made earlier in this judgment have not been complied with. The only provision which according to the petitioner has not been complied with is the condition attached to the licence that it shall be terminated if the licenses ceased to hold on lease the licensed premises. It is obvious that the Licensing Authority was not satisfied that a situation has arisen for termination of the licence on the ground that the licensee has ceased to hold on lease the licensed premises merely on the allegation of the petitioner that the licensee has become a trespasser on the expiry of the period of the lease. No illegality was committed in renewing the licence in favour of the respondents on the footing that the respondents have not yet been held by any competent court to have become trespassers and have ceased to hold on lease the licensed premises. 12. It has not been established that the impugned order was passed on the direction of the State Government or any other authority. Merely because the Licensing Authority kept in view the general guidelines contained in the Government Order dated 21-5-1971 it could not be held that the order in question was passed at the direction of the State Government or that the Licensing Authority did not apply his independent mind to the question whether the requirements of the U. P. Cinematograph Rules have been fully complied with. 13. In the present case admittedly a Civil Suit has been instituted by the petitioner for dispossession of the respondents on the ground that they have ceased to be lessees of the disputed premises-That suit is still pending. 13. In the present case admittedly a Civil Suit has been instituted by the petitioner for dispossession of the respondents on the ground that they have ceased to be lessees of the disputed premises-That suit is still pending. There has been no pronouncement by any competent court regarding the status of the respondents. They continued to be in possession and in effective control of the Licensed premises. They are the only persons who are in a position to make use of the licence for exhibiting films. 14. The principle laid down in M/s. Adarsh Films Ltd. v. District Magistrate (Special Appeal No. 344 of 1963 decided on 1-8-1963) (All) and in Ram Agyan Singh v. State of U. P. (Civil Misc. Writ No. 4580 of 1969, decided on 5-2-1971) (All) do not lend any support to the contention of the petitioner that the respondents were not entitled to grant of a cinematograph licence. In both these cases competent courts had pronounced upon the legal rights of the contending parties. In the case of Adarsh Films Ltd-it was held by the civil court that the petitioner was merely a mortgagee of the lease rights and those rights had been extinguished. In the case of Ram Agyan Singh the Civil Court held that the respondent was not the tenant of Regal Talkies and was a trespasser. In the case in hand the title of the contending parties had yet to be decided by a competent court. In our opinion the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in the present case. 15. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. 16. After delivery of judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner made an oral prayer for a certificate of fitness to appeal to the Supreme Court. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner we are not satisfied that the case raises any substantial question of law of general importance which needs decision by the Supreme Court. The prayer is rejected.