ORDER

Though notice has been sent on second occasion to respondent No. 3 on May 24, 1994, so far acknowledgement has not come back. Therefore, notice on 3rd respondent must be deemed to have been served. Respondents 1 & 2 are represented by Mr. G.S. Chatterjee.

2. Leave granted.

3. The respondents filed Suit No. 19/75 on May 19,1975 for eviction of the tenant Harkesh Rai Agarwal on three grounds, namely, default, sub-letting and personal requirement. The suit was dismissed on August 25, 1975. Again another suit was instituted on September 25, 1975 for the same grounds. The suit was again dismissed. Pending appeal, Harkesh Rai and the respondent have compromised the matter. By compromise decree dated November 26, 1981, Harkesh Rai agreed to surrender one room now in possession of the appellant. When execution was sought to be taken and the appellant resisted the execution, an application under Order 21 Rule 97 of CPC was filed to remove the obstruction which was ordered by the Executing Court. On appeal, the Hight Court by order dated August 16, 1983 in F.A.1/91 dismissed the appeal. Thus this appeal by special leave.

4. The question is: whether the appellant is bound by the compromise