Judgement SAIKIA Actg. C.J. :- This Civil Rule is taken up for hearing as agreed by the learned counsel for all the parties. 2. The petitioner took one plot of land on lease from the predecessor-in-interest of Respondents 5 to 11 sometime in 1966 for the purpose of setting up and running a saw mill, incurred considerable expenses and applied for a saw mill licence. The Divisional Forest Officer, Nowgong Division, Nowgong granted a licence vide Annexure-A to this petition. The Licence No. NG/7 dated 16-1-67 was initially valid up to 31-3-80. The licence has been renewed from time to time and the last renewal was up to 31-3-86, as endorsed on the back of the licence. On 29-3-86 the respondent No. 3, that is the Divisional Forest Officer, Nowgong, asked the petitioner to submit documents regarding the plat of land whereupon the mill was situated. This letter ex facie refers to another letter of the Divisional Forest Officer dated 24-2-86, but the same has not been produced by the petitioner before us nor is it available from the records. Mr. Sen submits that the petitioner did not receive any such letter. This letter dated 29-3-86 required the petitioner to submit the land documents of his mill immediately otherwise, it said, the petitioners saw mill licence would not be renewed. Admittedly on the date of this letter the petitioners licence was current. Mr. Sen submits that the aforesaid letter (Annexure-B) was written by the Divisional Forest Officer at the instance of the petitioners landlord. However, as the landlord is no longer a party to this petition we do not advert to that question. The conditions (clauses) under which the licence was issued have been stated in the licence itself. Condition No. 1 says that all the Forest Rules in force and other executive orders issued from time to time by the Divisional Forest Officer, Nowgong Division shall be fully complied with by the holder of the licence, Condition No. 13 says that in the event of any dispute arising between the holder of the licence and the licenser as regards the interpretation of the conditions of his licence or in respect of its performance the decision of the Conservator of Forests, Upper Assam Circle, Jorhat shall be final and binding on both. Condition No. 14 says that this licence shall be renewed before the expiry of the date of validity, which is mentioned in the licence. 3. On receipt of the aforesaid letter the petitioner only enquired as to at whose instance the aforesaid letter was issued, but did not reply to that letter. On 9-4-86, the Forest Beat Officer, Nowgong Town informed the petitioner that his saw mill had not been renewed for the year 1986-87 therefore he was asked to stop sawing of logs immediately. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation which, Mr. Sen says, was dated 10-4-86, stating that he had taken all the necessary steps according to the Rules to get his licence renewed in time and had also submitted all the relevant documents in respect of his claim for renewal in accordance with the direction of the Divisional Forest Officer, Nowgong Division and yet he was served with the notice dated 9-4-86. He further stated that it was the landlord who was raising objection to the renewal of his licence on the ground that T.S. No. 78 of 1985 was pending in the court of Munsiff No. 1 at Nowgong. He further stated that he still continued to be a tenant in respect of the land whereupon the saw mill was situated as he had been so for the last 20 years and prayed that his licence be renewed. Mr. Sen stated that petitioner was not favoured with any reply. It appears that the Divisional Forest Officer, Nowgong by his letter dated 7-4-86 to the Conservator of Forests, Northern Assam Circle, Tezpur stated that as the petitioners landlord wanted the petitioner to vacate the land whereupon the saw mill was situated he asked the petitioner to produce valid documents but the petitioner failed to do so and so his licence which was valid up to 31-3-86 could not be further renewed and he requested that necessary decision on the matter be intimated to him. He also sent instruction on the same date to the Forest Beat Officer, Nowgong that as the petitioners saw mill licence was not renewed, sawing of timbers in his mill should not be allowed and necessary actions should be taken immediately. He also sent instruction on the same date to the Forest Beat Officer, Nowgong that as the petitioners saw mill licence was not renewed, sawing of timbers in his mill should not be allowed and necessary actions should be taken immediately. On 8-5-86, the Conservator of Forests wrote to the Divisional Forest Officer, Nowgong that as a case between the landowner and the owner of the Guru Nanak Saw Mill, that is the petitioner, was pending in the Munsiffs Court, the licence might be renewed if the mill owner could shift the mill to a new site. This leaves no doubt that the non- renewal of the licence was because of the pendency of the suit in the Munsiffs court. Consequently the Divisional Forest Officer by his letter dated 29-5-86 asked the petitioner to shift his saw mill to a new site when his saw mill licence would be renewed. 4. Mr. Sen submits that the suit relating to the lease in respect of the land whereupon the saw mill is situated could not be a sufficient ground for refusing to renew the petitioners licence inasmuch as it was yet to be held that the petitioners lease was terminated by the court. Mr. K.P. Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate submits that for the purpose of renewal it was the duty of the petitioner to have produced all the documents that were necessary for renewal and a valid title to the land was one of the requisites and the petitioner having failed to show his right to continue upon the land the authorities rightly refused to renew the licence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the question of subsistence of the lease should be considered only insofar as it was necessary for the purpose of continuation of possession of the petitioner in respect of the land whereupon the mill was situated. In deciding the dispute between the landlord and the tenant in respect of the lease the Forest Officials should in no way act in aid of the landlord as such. If the licence holder fails to satisfy as to the existence of his right to possess the land whereupon the saw mill is situated it may be open for the officer to take his decision, but he could not in the aid of the landlord or against the tenant. If the licence holder fails to satisfy as to the existence of his right to possess the land whereupon the saw mill is situated it may be open for the officer to take his decision, but he could not in the aid of the landlord or against the tenant. It cannot be said that a person cannot have a saw mill licence unless he has a land of his own or in other words that saw mill cannot be situated over a land taken on lease. If the authorities initially granted the licence on disclosure of the petitioner that the mill was situated over a land taken on lease by him, the pendency of a civil suit disputing the lease ipso facto should not provide sufficient ground for refusal to renew the licence. If the petitioner fails to satisfy that the lease has not been terminated wherefor his rights to possess the land upon which the mill was situated continued, that would of course be a different question altogether. In the instant case there is evidence to show that the landlord himself approached the forest authority not to renew the licence because of the pendency of the civil suit. The pendency of the civil suit does not ipso facto terminate the lease. Whether the lease was terminated or not would be decided by the Civil Court and unless that is done the officer, who granted the licence on the basis of the lease of the land, cannot reasonably refuse to renew the licence on the ground of mere pendency of the dispute. Otherwise, the source of income by running a saw mill may be vulnerable due to intervention at the instance of the landlord by mere filing of a suit disputing the lease. We are accordingly of the view that in the instant case the petitioners prayer for renewal should be considered dehors the fact of pendency of the Civil suit. If the Civil suit has finally ended in determination of the petitioners lease then of course there will be no subsisting lease and, therefore, no right to possess the land and it would be open for the authorities to take that factor into consideration. If the Civil suit has finally ended in determination of the petitioners lease then of course there will be no subsisting lease and, therefore, no right to possess the land and it would be open for the authorities to take that factor into consideration. We accordingly consider it just and expedient that the petitioners prayer for renewal of his licence should be considered afresh by the Conservator of Forests as well as the Divisional Forest Officer on the basis of the materials he has already produced dehors the question of pendency of the civil suit. If, however, the civil suit has already resulted in the final determination of the petitioners tenancy or, in other words, if the petitioners right of possession over the land, whereupon the saw mill is situated, has been terminated, that factor can of course be taken into consideration by the authorities. We make it clear that this direction is one to dispose of the petitioners prayer for renewal of his licence in accordance with law taking into consideration the observations made hereinabove. 5. In the result, with the above directions this petition is accepted and the Rule is made absolute. We, however, make no order as to costs. Petition allowed.