( 1 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the contesting respondents 3 to 7 and the learned High Court Government pleader for respondents 1 and 2.

( 2 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the District Magistrate (Annexure F) refusing to renew the license of the petitioners to run the cinema theatre as well as the affirmative order passed by the Divisional Commissioner (Annexure G ).

( 3 ) THE facts according to the petitioners leading to the present proceedings are as follows : premises bearing No. 43, Residency Road, Bangalore, originally a vacant site belonging to one M. A. Bhakhi, predecessor-in-title of respondents 3 to 7 herein was leased to petitioner-1 under a registered lease deed dated 2-2-1966 for a period of 35 years from the date of execution of the lease deed, i. e. , the lease would come to an end on 2-2-2001. Copy of the lease deed is produced as Annexure A to the writ petition. As per the terms of the lease, after certain initial payments, petitioner 1 was required to build a cinema theatre and to run the same. One of the conditions, viz. , Condition No. 9, was an option given to petitioner 1 to continue the lease for a further period of 15 years on such terms and conditions to be mutually agreed upon. But, the option to continue the lease for the period of 15 years should be exercised by petitioner 1-lessee with six months' notice before the expiry of the lease period of 35 years. Condition No. 10 prescribes that, if the aforesaid option is exercised by the lessee, there shall be a separate lease deed registered and the lessee on the expiry of the further period of 15 years shall deliver possession of the property. According to the petitioners, as in the year 1969 some dispute arose between the parties and as per the agreement the dispute was referred to an arbitrator. It is the case of the petitioners that after the reference of the dispute to the arbitrator, on 28-8-1969 the arbitrator passed the Award (vide Annexure B to the writ petition) extending the lease for a period of one year from 2-2-2001 to 1-2-2002. It is contended that, though the Award was not made rule of the Court, both the parties have acted upon it as per the letter of acknowledgment dated 29-6-1970 written by Bhakhi, the lessor and predecessor-in-title of respondents 3 to 7, with acceptance of additional rent (vide Annexure C to the writ petition ). It is submitted that before the expiry of the period as per the extended time as held by the arbitrator, on 2-8-2000 as per the letter at Annexure D the petitioners exercised the option, but the respondents refused to renew the lease. Hence, petitioner-1 was forced to file a suit in O. S. No. 833 of 2002 in the Civil Court for specific performance and it is stated to be still pending adjudication.

( 4 ) AS this was the state of affairs, when the license period of petitioner-1 to run the cinema was coming to an end, he filed an application before the District Magistrate for renewal of the license and the District Magistrate considering the case of the petitioners by an order dated 2-7-2001 (vide Annexure E to the writ petition) renewed the license of respondent/petitioner-1 herein till 31-10-2001. Aggrieved by the same, respondents 3 to 7 preferred an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner. Questioning the maintainability of the appeal filed by respondents 3 to 7, petitioner 1 approached this Court in Writ Petitions Nos. 43004 of 2001 and it is stated that this Court had stayed further proceedings in the appeal. According to the petitioners, during the pendency of the writ petition, the period of license came to an end and on the application filed by petitioner-1 the District Magistrate granted a temporary permit under Rule 86 of the Cinema Rules. This was again challenged by respondents 3 to 7 in Writ Petition No. 44977 of 2001. According to the learned counsel, this Court by the order dated 18-