ORDER : 1. We had taken up this matter in the pre-lunch session and cautioned the learned Senior Counsel and the counsel now appearing in the matter of the consequences of such an endeavour, but in the post-lunch session, it is stated that the appellant was present and the instructions was to press this miscellaneous petition. 2. The appellant/petitioner filed W.P.No.20789 of 2013 against the orders of the Appellate Authority and the Licensing Authority declining his request to grant 'C' Form licence for Solai Hall Cinema Theatre. The appellant/petitioner sought to make out a case that the owners of the property had borrowed a sum of Rs.40 lakhs from him and since they were unable to repay the money, he along with his wife and as Power Agent of his sons, executed the agreement labelled as a 'Varthamana Agreement' dated 01.01.2001, which was an unregistered document for enjoyment of income from the theatre in lieu of interest payable for a period of ten years. In the event of the amount of Rs.40 lakhs being repaid before the expiry of the ten year period, the appellant/petitioner was required to vacate the premises and if the amount was not paid even within ten years, then the appellant/petitioner could enjoy the income till the debt is repaid. 3. The Licensing Authority rejected the application on the ground that there could not be such an extension as the owners were not cooperating and the document was an unregistered document of which ten years had expired. The occupation of the appellant/petitioner was, thus, held not to be a lawful possession, which was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. This view has also been accepted by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.20789 of 2013 decided on 18.12.2014 against which the appeal was filed. 4. At the inception of the hearing of the appeal itself on 03.03.2016, learned counsel for respondent no.5 stated that a sum of Rs.20 lakhs can be paid to the appellant within a month and in so far as the balance of Rs.20 lakhs is concerned, a copy of the receipt was produced allegedly signed by the appellant/petitioner to contend that the said amount already stood paid. In order to enable the controversy to be resolved, the appellant was asked to remain present in Court on the next date. 5. In order to enable the controversy to be resolved, the appellant was asked to remain present in Court on the next date. 5. On the next date, the receipt of Rs.20 lakhs by the appellant/petitioner was not disputed, but it was stated that the same was for some other transaction. The original receipt of Rs.20 lakhs having been produced, we enquired from the appellant about the same and the true picture which emerged was recorded in the order dated 07.04.2016. There was no other transaction and the transaction was of Rs.40 lakhs as financed. On the inability of the father and mother of the owner to pay the finance amount, two plots were transferred worth Rs.20 lakhs and thus, Rs.20 lakhs remained. Thereafter also, in a piecemeal, allegedly another Rs.20 lakhs had been borrowed and that is how the total amount came to Rs.40 lakhs. The interest of which was being served by running of the theatre. The matter was also referred to the Mediation Centre with an endeavour to reconcile the differences among the parties, but was not successful. 6. On 22.06.2016, learned Senior Counsel for the fifth respondent, on instructions, stated that in order to end the controversy, the said respondent herself was willing to pay the amount of Rs.40 lakhs to the appellant at which stage possession could be handed over. On 20.07.2016, the memo was filed by the fifth respondent including a copy of the Demand Draft of Rs.40 lakhs. It is recorded that in terms of agreement arrived at inter se the parties, this amount of Rs.40 lakhs has to be handed over to the appellant/petitioner at the time of handing over possession. On behalf of the appellant/petitioner, a request was made that the possession could be handed over after some time to enable the appellant/petitioner to make necessary arrangements and thus, 14th of August, 2016, was the date fixed. At joint request of the parties, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to carry out the task with charges to be borne by both sides and the matter was listed on 19.08.2016 for compliance with the original Demand Draft being handed over to the Advocate Commissioner. 7. Now, the present miscellaneous petition, contrary to the agreed arrangement, is sought to be filed on behalf of the appellant/petitioner seeking to resile from the consent which was granted. 7. Now, the present miscellaneous petition, contrary to the agreed arrangement, is sought to be filed on behalf of the appellant/petitioner seeking to resile from the consent which was granted. A new counsel has stepped in after the earlier counsel granted the discharge. What is now sought to be claimed is that the appellant/petitioner does not know how the counsel gave a consent for Rs.40 lakhs, as he claims Rs.1,02,42,244/- as due. The basis of that claim is, of course, not set out in the affidavit. 8. In our view, such an exercise must be deprecated in the strongest of terms. It was not a single day settlement, but the proceedings went on on different dates, as we have set out hereinbefore. The appellant/petitioner was also led by a Senior Counsel. This is now an endeavour to somehow retain the running of the theatre even though the full loan amount is being repaid and the income from the theatre has been enjoyed by the appellant/ petitioner. 9. It does appear that the indulgence given by the Court in permitting the theatre to be run in the interregnum period in order to enable some settlement to be arrived at inter se the parties, despite there being an unregistered document in respect of a immovable property, is sought to be misconstrued as some kind of a licence. We, had, in fact, permitted the appellant/petitioner to continue to run the theatre till the date of handing over of possession on 14.08.2016. 10. The present endeavour must invite some consequences. Firstly, the endeavour of the appellant/petitioner to run the theatre in the meantime must be brought to a cessation immediately and we, thus, direct the Licensing Authority/the second respondent, District Collector, Dindugul, to seal the premises forthwith on receipt of the order. The Local Commissioner will, thereafter, perform his task on 14.08.2016 as already specified. 11. We also consider it appropriate that the appellant/petitioner must bear the costs for wastage of judicial time of this Court, as also for the misconceived endeavour. We quantify the costs at Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to be deposited with the Tamil Nadu Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Madras High Court Campus, within three (3) days from the date of receipt of the order. 12. Miscellaneous petition is, accordingly, rejected at the SR stage, in the aforesaid terms.