Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.

1. Fourth respondent in WP.No.3250 of 2013 is the appellant and the fourth respondent, in this appeal, is the writ petitioner in the above writ petition.

2. For the sake of convenience, the appellant is described as tenant and the fourth respondent is described as landlady.

3. Landlady filed WP.No.3250 of 2013 questioning the proceedings of the third respondent – Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Nellore, renewing 2B license for running bar and restaurant in favour of the appellant for the excise year 2012-2013. The said order was questioned by the landlady, inter alia, on the ground that neither there is a subsisting lease in favour of the tenant nor the landlady has authorized the tenant to remain in possession for the period for which renewal is granted. By the impugned order dated 25.06.2013, the writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge and questioning the said order, the tenant is in appeal before us.

4. We have heard elaborate submissions of Mr. C. V. Mohan Reddy, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the tenant and Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned senior counsel appearing in support of the landlady as well as t