Sanjay Karol, J.

1. Following questions of law arise for consideration in the present petition:

(a) As to whether compromise arrived at between the parties to the lis through their counsel, as recorded in the record of proceedings of the learned Mediator is binding upon them and that the Court is bound to accept the same as such, making it executable in law?

(b) As to whether an unauthorized person claiming to be a sub-tenant/trespasser can be said to be “any aggrieved party” having any right to prefer a petition under Sub-Section (5) of Section 24 of the Himachal Pradesh Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(c) Whether the petitioner has got any locus to challenge the findings returned by the authorities under the Act?

(d) Whether findings returned by the authorities below are based on correct and complete appreciation of material placed on record?

(e) Whether such findings are a result of collusion between the landlord and the tenant?

(f) Whether the petitioner is liable to pay use and occupation charges Rs. 52,500/- per month and if so? Then for what period and from which date?

2. Facts are simple.

3. In the year, 1997, Dr. Kailash Kumar Kashyap (h