Judgment : This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the order in Rc.No.329/2006/A1 dated 26.07.2012 of respondent No.3, whereby he has renewed 2B licence of respondent No.4 for the year 2012-13 as illegal and arbitrary. This case has a lengthy background. The petitioner, who is admittedly the landlady, and respondent No.4, who was inducted as a tenant, are at loggerheads with regard to the premises in dispute. Initially a lease agreement was entered between the petitioner and respondent No.4 for a period of one year from 01.07.2006 to 30.06.2007. Based on the said lease, respondent No.2 has granted 2B licence to respondent No.4 to run a bar and restaurant for a period of one year. Even though the period of lease agreement has expired, as the petitioner has not objected to the continuance of respondent No.4 in the disputed premises, the licence was renewed for the excise year 2007-08. However, by proceedings dated 23.06.2008, respondent No.3 has declined to renew the licence in favour of respondent No.4. Respondent No.2, vide his proceedings, dated 02.07.2008, directed respondent No.3 to permit respondent No.4 to run the bar and restaurant subject to the condition of his producing the lease deed. Questioning the said proceedings, the petitioner filed W.P.No.14797 of 2008. By interim order dated 10.07.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.19120 of 2008 in W.P.No.3250 of 2013, this Court has suspended the proceedings of respondent No.2. The petitioner has also filed O.S.No.614 of 2008 in the Court of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, for eviction of respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 also filed W.P.No.25076 of 2008 questioning the order dated 23.06.2008 of respondent No.3 refusing to grant renewal of 2B licence. In the vacate stay petition filed by respondent No.4 in W.P.No.14797 of 2008, the learned Single Judge has made the interim order absolute. Respondent No.4 has carried the matter in W.A.No.1359 of 2008 against the order of the learned Single Judge and the writ appeal was dismissed, by order dated 07.11.2008. However, in the meantime, the petitioner and respondent No.4 entered into a compromise, according to which respondent No.4 has agreed to vacate the premises in question by 01.07.2010. Recording the said compromise, this Court has closed W.P.Nos.14797 and 25076 of 2008, by common order dated 22.12.2008. In view of the said compromise, the petitioner has withdrawn O.S.No.614 of 2008. However, in the meantime, the petitioner and respondent No.4 entered into a compromise, according to which respondent No.4 has agreed to vacate the premises in question by 01.07.2010. Recording the said compromise, this Court has closed W.P.Nos.14797 and 25076 of 2008, by common order dated 22.12.2008. In view of the said compromise, the petitioner has withdrawn O.S.No.614 of 2008. Having regard to the compromise entered into between the parties and the order passed in W.P.No.14797 of 2009, respondent No.3 renewed the bar licence of respondent No.4 up to 01.07.2010. Following the mediation of elders, the petitioner agreed to extend the lease for a further period of one year and accordingly, respondent No.4 filed a petition before the Lok Adalat, Nellore. The Lok Adalat passed award No.300 of 2010 dated 30.06.2010 extending the lease in favour of respondent No.4 from 01.07.2010 to 30.06.2011. In pursuance of the said award, respondent No.3 has renewed the licence of respondent No.4 from 01.07.2010 to 30.06.2011. The petitioner has once again agreed to extend the lease for a further period of one year and respondent No.4 filed a fresh petition before the Lok Adalat, Nellore, which passed another award bearing No.349 of 2011 dated 30.06.2011 extending the lease in favour of respondent No.4 from 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2012. Based on the said award, respondent No.3 renewed the lease in favour of respondent No.4 from 01.07.2011 to 30.06.2012. For the excise year 2012-13, respondent No.4 approached respondent No.3 for renewal of the bar licence. He has relied upon a purported agreement of sale dated 02.04.2012 stated to have been executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent No.4 agreeing to sell the disputed premises for a sale consideration of Rs.65,00,000/-. Respondent No.4 has also placed before this Court, a copy of the alleged letter dated 02.04.2012 purportedly addressed by the petitioner to respondent No.3 stating that she has no objection for renewal of licence. However, the petitioner has sent objections to respondent No.3, wherein she has seriously disputed the genuineness of the purported agreement of sale and the alleged letter dated 02.04.2012 and she stated that she has not executed the said two documents and seriously opposed the application of respondent No.4 for renewal of licence for the excise year 2012-13. Despite the said objections, respondent No.3 has issued proceedings dated 26.07.2012 renewing the licence in favour of respondent No.4 from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013. Despite the said objections, respondent No.3 has issued proceedings dated 26.07.2012 renewing the licence in favour of respondent No.4 from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013. Questioning this proceeding, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner has also filed E.P.No.41 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Nellore, seeking execution of award No.349 of 2011 dated 30.06.2011 of the Lok Adalat, Nellore, and the same is pending. Respondent No.4 filed O.S.No.217 of 2012 in the Court of the learned V Additional District Judge, Nellore, seeking specific performance of the purported agreement of sale and the said suit is also pending. The abovenoted facts would clearly reveal that as per the second Lok Adalat award No.349 of 2011, dated 30.06.2011, respondent No.4 agreed to vacate the premises by 30.06.2012. The agreement and the letter dated 02.04.2012 set up by respondent No.4 are in serious dispute. Admittedly, the title is still with the petitioner. At best, respondent No.4 is only an agreement holder. With the passing of the awards by the Lok Adalat, respondent No.4 cannot be said to be in lawful or legal possession. In M.C. Chockalingam and others vs. V. Manickavasagam and others ( AIR 1974 SC 104 = (1974) 2 SCR 143 = (1974) 1 SCC 48 ), the Supreme Court held that continuance of lessee’s possession after expiry of period of lease is not lawful for the purposes of renewal of licence because the licensee was left with no interest in the property after expiry of lease. In Mandakini Restaurant and Bar vs. Dy. Commnr. of Porh.& Excise ( 2008(4) ALD 188 ), this Court, while interpreting Rules 6 and 9-A of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Grant of Licence of Selling by Bar and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (for short ‘the Rules”), held that no objection from the landlady is sine qua non for renewal of the bar licence. In the instant case, the admitted fact is that the lease was in favour of respondent No.4 and it has expired and he was continued in the premises as a lawful tenant till 30.06.2012. Respondent No.4 has invited award No.349 of 2011 dated 30.06.2011, under which he has undertaken to vacate the premises by 30.06.2012. In the ordinary course, this award binds him. Respondent No.4 has invited award No.349 of 2011 dated 30.06.2011, under which he has undertaken to vacate the premises by 30.06.2012. In the ordinary course, this award binds him. However, his right over the premises would be subject to the decree that may be passed by the learned V Additional District Judge, Nellore, in O.S.No.217 of 2012 filed by him for specific performance of the purported agreement of sale. Sri C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel representing Sri S. Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.4, has placed reliance on the judgment in Krishna Kishore Firm vs. The Govt. of A.P. and others ( AIR 1990 SC 2292 = (1991)1 SCC 184 ). I have carefully considered the said judgment, which deals with the question whether the possession of a lessee, who acquires the interest of one of co-lessors, before expiration of period of lease, is litigious or lawful. The said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case because unlike in the said case, there is a serious dispute over the claim of respondent No.4 that he has acquired interest from the lessor. As the very authenticity of the agreement set up by respondent No.4 is in serious dispute and his suit for specific performance is pending, there is no basis for respondent No.3 to renew the bar licence beyond the excise year 2011-12. Therefore, respondent No.3 has committed a serious illegality in renewing the licence of respondent No.4 for the excise year 2012-13, by the impugned order dated 26.07.2012, which is accordingly set aside. However, respondent No.4 can seek appropriate relief from the civil Court, in which his suit filed for specific performance of the purported agreement of sale is pending. Unless respondent No.4 approaches the civil Court and secures an appropriate order, respondent No.3 cannot renew the licence for the future period. Subject to the liberty given to respondent No.4 as above, the Writ Petition is allowed. As a sequel to allowing the writ petition, interim order dated 07.06.2013 is vacated and W.P.M.P.Nos.4023 and 19076 of 2013 and W.V.M.P.No.1685 of 2013 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.