( 1 ) IN extremely unfortunate circumstances this matter has come up before me in revision.

( 2 ) I will very briefly indicate the circumstances under which this matter has come up before me for disposal.

( 3 ) AN eviction decree was obtained by the plaintiff against the peti- tioner who was the tenant of the suit premises at the relevant time. After the eviction decree was obtained an appeal was filed be the tenant which came up for disposal before the Bench of Court of Small Causes at Ahmedabad.

( 4 ) WHEN the appeal was heard by the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at Ahmedabad on behalf of the tenant a pursis was given to the Division Bench of Court of Small Causes and in that pursis it was clearly stated that if four years time was given to vacate the suit premises the petitioner-tenant would not take any of the contentions raised by him in the appeal.

( 5 ) THE Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes without any tittle of jurisdiction for reducing the said period reduced the aforesaid period from four years to three years and confirmed the eviction decree passed by the learned trial Judge.

( 6 ) IT is unfortunate that after the disposal of the appeal the hus- band of the respondent-landlady died.

( 7 ) UNDER the aforesaid circumstances Mr. P. B. Majmudar the learned advocate for the tenant raised a neat point of law which in his submission has resulted into grave and patent miscarriage of justice.

( 8 ) MR. Majmudar the learned advocate for the tenant urged before me that in the instant case what was the pursis which was given by the tenant to the Bench of Small Causes Court ? The pursis clearly in terms provided that if four years time was given to the tenant to evict the suit premises in question the tenant would not press any of the contentions raised by him in the appeal memo. In spit of the said cate- gorical statement made by the tenant in the Appellate Court of Small Causes the learned Judges of the Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court without any tittle of jurisdiction reduced the aforesaid period of four years to three years

( 9 ) ON the aforesaid facts the controversy which was centered round at the bar was that the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes has no jurisdiction to reduce the period from four years to three years and hence the only alternative open to it was to hear the appeal on the merits of the matter.

( 10 ) UNDER the aforesaid circumstances when this revision application was placed before me it was brought to my notice by Mr. Majmudar that even the decree in question was executed only a few days before the present Civil Revision Application was filed in this Court and his grievance was that as it was a decree passed by a Court without any Jurisdiction and hence a nonest decree; and the Executing Court obviously erred in executing the same and in disturbing the possession of the tenant.

( 11 ) UNDER the aforesaid circumstances I requested Mr. Shelat on 28/08/1981 to be ready on the point involved in the matter and gave time to him to study the matter but when to-day the matter rea- ched hearing Mr. Jadeja another advocate appeared before me for the opponent-landlady. I requested Mr. Jadeja to satisfy me as to how the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes has the jurisdiction to reduce the period from four years to three years. If the Court of Small Causes was not inclined to accept the suggestion of the tenant it was open for the court to dispose of the appeal on merits and that was the only right and legal course open to it. Instead of following that proce- dure the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes disposed of the appeal by reducing the period from four years to three years without the consent of the tenant and possibly without his knowledge or consent. Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not contemplate a situation when the Court can alter the terms of the compromise. The offer which was put by the tenant was altered substantial