Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing the first Respondent, Licencing Authority to forthwith renew licence of the petitioners ‘C’ Form Licence, Thirumalai Talkies, Kottivakkam till 1.7.2004 without insisting upon the petitioner to produce a fresh renewal lease dated of the site. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.S. Palanisamy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent, Mr. Sivasankaran, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents 2 to 6. 3. The petitioner entered into an unregistered lease agreement on 25.1.1999 for the period 1.5.1999 to 31.3.2000 for the purpose of running a temporary cinema theatre. The petitioner was granted ‘C’ Form Licence by proceedings dated 1.7.1999. The petitioner applied for renewal of the ‘C Form Licence commencing from 1.4.2000. The contesting respondents did not come forward to give consent or to renew the lease and difference arose between the petitioner and the contesting respondents. The petitioner claims that he is in lawful possession and therefore he is entitled to the renewal of ‘C Form Licence beyond 31.3.2000 without reference to the expiry of the lease period as well as lessors. The petitioner approached the first respondent/Licencing Authority for renewal. But the Licensing Authority declined to renew the Licence. Hence the present writ petition. 4. Admittedly, the lease period has come to an end. In terms of Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulations) Rules 1957, the Licensee should produce documentary proof in support of his claim that he is in lawful possession of the site, building and equipment and the Licensing Authority should satisfy himself before granting ‘C’ Form Licence. In this case the second respondent not only opposed, but also initiated action against the petitioner, as already the lease period had come to an end. Therefore the first respondent/Licencing Authority rightly insisted for production of documentary proof to substantiate the petitioners claim that he is in peaceful possession of the land, which is one of the prerequisite conditions for renewal of ‘C Form Licence. 5. Therefore the first respondent/Licencing Authority rightly insisted for production of documentary proof to substantiate the petitioners claim that he is in peaceful possession of the land, which is one of the prerequisite conditions for renewal of ‘C Form Licence. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the pronouncement of Thangamani, J., in Sri Hanuman Vahana Paanchaparva Kattalai attached to Sri Venkatachalapathi Perumal Temple v. Subramanian , reported in 1994 (II) MLJ 239 in support of his contention that even after the expiry of the lease period, the petitioner, a tenant, who overstays cannot be considered to be in unlawful possession and he is entitled to a renewal. Much reliance was placed on the said Judgment. 6. The point raised in this writ petition is no longer res integra and the view of Thangamani, J., is no longer good law. In Ranganayaki Anni, V.T. v. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2001 (3) CTC 599 = 2001 3 L.W. 166, a Division Bench of this Court after considering the earlier decision in M.C. Chockalingam v. V. Manickavasagam. reported in AIR 1974 SC 104 , R.V. Bhupal Prasad v. State of Andhra Pradesh , reported in AIR 1996 SC 140 , Madura Talkies Pvt. Ltd. v. The District Collector, reported in 2000 (I) CTC 68 = 2001 1 L.W. 604 as well as a Division Bench Judgment in Vinoda Talkies v. District Magistrate, Tumkur, reported in AIR 2000 Kar. 25 held after the expiry of the lease even if the lessee continues in possession by getting orders of injunction against the owner of the land from interfering with his possession, his possession does not satisfy the requirement of “lawful possession” of the property within the meaning of Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulations) Rules. Such possession would amount to litigious possession which is without any legal right. The Division Bench, to which I am a party, held thus: — “15. When we consider the lawful possession with reference to Rule 13 of the said Rules, even in the first part if the applicant either for the grant of licence or renewal, if he is the owner of the property, he has to produce before the licensing authority the necessary records not only relating to his ownership but also regarding his possession. It is implicit tat the owner having a title to the property if he can satisfy the licensing authority with regard to his possession also will indeed be in the lawful possession although the word ‘lawful’ is not used in the first part. It is in this context, the word ‘possession’ is even not necessary to be qualified by lawful in the first part of Rule 13. However, the applicant, for the licence or renewal, is not the owner, there is no question of his showing title to the property and the only requirement of the law is to produce to the satisfaction of the authority, documentary evidence with regard to its lawful possession of the property. The word ‘Lawful possession’ naturally assumes significance in the second part, while it was not even necessary in the first part. The fact that after the expiry of the lease the tenant will be able to continue his possession of the property by filing a suit for injunction restraining the owner of the land from interfering the owner of the land from interfering with his possession, does not satisfy’ the requirement of lawful possession’ of the property within the meaning of Rule 13 of the said Rules. After the expiry of the lease, there is no relationship between the landlord and tenant and as such the possession of the lessee would amount to litigious possession which is without any legal right.” 7. In the light of the above pronouncement and earlier Division Bench pronouncement, this Court holds that the view taken by A. Thangamani, J., is no longer a good law. As a consequence it follows the petitioner herein whose lease had not been renewed is not in lawful possession, but in litigious possession and he cannot compel the respondents by issue of a writ of Mandamus to renew the licence. The relief of Mandamus on the facts of the case would amount to compelling the respondents to violate the statutory Rule 13 of the Tamil Nadu Cinemas (Regulations) Rules, 1957 and that is not the scope of mandamus and the same will be against the well settled legal pronouncement of Division Bench Judgment of this Court as well as that of the Supreme Court referred to above. In law no mandamus shall be issued compelling the authorities to violate the statutory Rule or commit an act which is illegal or to deviate from the Rule. 8. The Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected W.M.P. is closed. The parties shall bear their respective costs.