Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—This is landlord’s writ petition arising out of eviction/ release proceedings initiated by him on the ground of bona fide need under Section 21 of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. Some of the contesting respondents were tenants opposite parties before the trial Court and rest were substituted before the Courts below after the death of their predecessor tenants opposite parties. Release application was registered as P.A. Case No. 49 of 1992 on the file of prescribed authority/1st Additional Civil Judge, Muzaffar Nagar. In the release application, respondents 6 and 7 Mitra Sen and Desh Raj were impleaded as alleged sub-tenants. Sri Mitra Sen died and was substituted by his legal representatives. Release application was allowed on 11.11.1994.

2. Accommodation in dispute is commercial in nature rent of which is quite nominal, virtually negligible.

3. Against judgment and order dated 11.11.1994 two appeals were filed one by Dr. Ved Bhushan and others being R.C. Appeal No. 60 of 1994 and the other by Mitrasen being R.C. Appeal No. 62 of 1994. In the appeals on 18.9.1995, which was a date fixed in the appeals one advocate Sri Man Mohan Mittal filed a compromise along with an application stating therein that the parties in appeal had entered into compromise, which was being filed by him (Sri Man Mohan Mittal, Advocate). Sri M.M. Mittal was not the Counsel of any of the parties. Copy of the said compromise is Annexure 5 to the writ petition. The landlord objected that no such compromise had been entered into. Sri Mittal also stated that under compromise tenant had given Rs. 50,000/- to him for payment to landlord. On 25.9.1995, landlord filed objections along with affidavit. Counter affidavit to that was also filed. Sri Mittal was directed to give his oral evidence. His evidence was recorded on 13.10.1998, copy of which is Annexure 8 to the writ petition. The appellate Court held that compromise had in fact taken place hence appeals were decided in terms of the compromise through judgment and order dated 30.3.1999. Landlord has challenged the said order through this writ petition.

4. A sketch map of the accommodation in dispute (which is double storied) has been filed in this writ petition. Frontage of the accommodation in dispute is about 16.5 feet and depth is about 30.6 feet.

5. Half of the accommodation in dispute towards east (both floors) having frontage of 8 feet 3 inch was to be vacated by the tenants under the compromise on the condition that on the remaining half (western portion) of the accommodation in dispute Dr. Ved Bhushan respondent No. 2 would remain in possession of the ground floor and Mitrasen of the first floor as owners. In para 7 of the said agreement, it was stated that the right of the tenants in the property which they agreed to surrender to the landlord was estimated to be Rs. 3 Lakhs and that rupees eighty thousand would be paid in addition by the tenants to the landlord and it would be deemed that in lieu of this amount of Rs. 3,80,000/- tenants had purchased the western half portion and they were entitled to get sale deed of the same executed from the landlord. It was also noted that earlier also some talks of compromise had taken place and in pursuance thereof Rs. 30,000/- had been given to the landlord which was to be adjusted from the amount of Rs. 80,000/- required to be paid by the tenants to the landlord and balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- was being deposited with Sri Mittal for payment to the landlord. Under clause 16 of the compromise, it was provided that if any dispute arose in respect of the same or any clarification was required then the decision of Sri Mittal would be acceptable to both the parties as compromise had been affected due to his efforts. Compromise bears the date of 16.9.1995. It was filed before appellate Court on 18.9.1995.

6. Under Section 34(1)(f) of U.P Act No. 13 of 1972, it is provided that the authorities under the Act, including prescribed authority or