A statement made by a party conceding the facts found by the court and seeking time to comply with an order does not constitute a compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

N.K.Kapoor, J.

1. This is tenants revision petition. Vinod Kumar landlord filed an application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the Act) for ejectment of the tenants on the grounds, namely, non payment of rent; premises in dispute having become unfit and unsafe for human habitation - the building being an old structure constructed about 100 years back and that most of the building has fallen down. In addition thereto, eviction was sought on the ground that the tenant has changed the user of the premises in dispute from hotel to fruit shop without the written consent of the landlord and that the tenant has committed such acts as are likely to impair the value and utility of the demised building by effecting unauthorised structural changes. Not only this, Harbans Lal tenant has parted with possession of the demised premises in favour of Ashwani Kumar and Rajinder Kumar (petitioners No. 2 and 3 in the present revision petition).

2. The tenants contested the application and filed written statement denying the allegations of the landlord.

3. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the demised premises has become unfit or unsafe for human habitation? OPA

2. Whether respondent No. 1 has changed the user of the premises in dispute? OPA.

3. Whether the respondent has committed such acts as are likely to impair materially the value and utility of the premises in dispute? OPA.

4. Whether respondent No. 1 has sub let the premises in dispute to respondents No. 2 and 3? OPA.

5. Relief.

4. Rent Controller examined issues No. 1 and 3 together and held that the premises in dispute consisted of one big hall and one room behind the hall and that the roof had fallen down which the tenant had reconstructed having divided the same into two shops. Roof of one shop is constructed with wooden planks whereas the roof of the other shop is constructed with in sheets and so the roof of the newly constructed shops is of temporary nature and can fall at any time. Rent Controller further held that the tenant has made material changes/alterations in the premises in dispute. Accordingly, the Tribunal held that the building is unfit and unsafe for human habitation and the value and utility of the building in dispute has also diminished on account of these material alterations and changes. Accordingly, both these issues were decided in favour of the landlord and against the tenant. Under issue No. 2, the Rent Controller held that the tenant has changed the user of the premises in dispute. Issue No. 4 was decided against the landlord. Resultantly, the application for ejectment was accepted and a direction was issued to the tenant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the premises in dispute to the landlord within three months from the passing of the order.

5. The tenant-respondents in the eviction petition filed appeal before the appellate authority for setting aside the order of the Rent Controller dated 12.11.1986. The appellate authority heard the arguments and on the request of learned counsel for the tenant chose to inspect the building as to whether the building as a whole is unfit and unsafe for human habitation. An inspection note was recorded on 21.10.88. When the appeal came up for further hearing, counsel for the tenant made a statement that the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn and they be given time till 30.6.1989 to hand over its possession to the landlord. This was not objected to by the learned counsel for the landlord and so the appellate authority dismissed the appeal having been withdrawn. However, Harbans Lal tenant was permitted to remain in occupation of the demised premises till 30.5.1989 as mutually agreed by the respective counsel.

6. Despite having withdrawn the appeal, the present revision petition has been filed challenging the order of the appellate authority that the same is violative of Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (