Honble Shishir Kumar, J.—This writ petition has been preferred by petitioner for quashing the compromise decree dated 21.5.2005 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Kanpur Nagar.

2. The factual background of present case is that there is a Public Charitable Trust known as Committee Sadavart Va Dharmshala Chhotey Lal Gaya Prasad. The Trust is mean for providing free education to the helpless, poor peoples, free medical services by opening hospitals and also providing helps to all needy peoples from the income of trust property owned by trust. The trust is owner of property bearing Bunglow No. 84 Cantonment, Kanpur. The father of defendant-respondent No. 2 was tenant and after his death, respondent No. 2 succeeded the tenancy, which was alleged to have been terminated on 29.7.1999 when the notice of terminating the tenancy was served. The defendant-respondent No. 2 did not vacate the premises and occupied the same and used Bunglow No. 84 wrongfully for which he is liable to pay damages after the date of termination of tenancy. One Pashupati Nath Mehrotra, one of the trustee of the aforesaid Trust filed a suit No. 265 of 2000 with a relief for decree of ejectment of the actual dispossession of defendant from Bunglow No. 84, Cantt. Kanpur and also for arrears of rent along with damages and pendente lite and future damages. The suit was contested by respondent No. 2 and he filed a written statement challenging the authority of Sri Pashupati Nath Mehrotra regarding institution of suit against respondent No. 1 on the ground that he has no authority in law to institute the suit on behalf of Trust as Trust has never authorised Sri Pashupati Nath Mehrotra for filing the aforesaid suit. The suit was registered before the Judge, Small Causes Court bearing Suit No. 265 of 2000 and following issues were framed :

(1) Whether Sri Pashupati Nath Mehrotra has authority in law to file a suit and if he has authority, then what is the effect?

(2) Whether after service of notice of terminating the tenancy, the tenancy of defendant-respondent No. 2 has come to an end and presently he is occupying the said premises as tespasser?

(3) For what relief, plaintiff is entitled.

3. The suit was contested and was dismissed by order dated 22.3.2005 by holding that Trust has not authorised Sri Pashupati Nath Mehrotra to file a suit and he alone has no authority to file the said suit for ejectment of a tenant. During pendency of suit aforestated, in a pending Suit No. 8 of 2003 under Section 92 of Civil Procedure Code, receiver was appointed by Court below on 11.10.2004 and one Rama Shanker Srivastava was appointed as receiver. The said order was challenged by way of filing First Appeal From Order bearing No. 3063 of 2004 and receiver was substituted in place of Rama Shanker Srivastava as Sri A.H. Ansari, retired District Judge, Kanpur Dehat as receiver. Though in SCC Suit No. 265 of 2000 Sri A.H. Ansari was not substituted nor he has filed any application for substitution nor there is any order to substitute Sri A.H. Ansari as receiver in the suit. A revision was preferred against judgment by receiver as JSCC Revision No. 37 of 2005 on 12.4.2005. In the aforesaid revision, on 21.5.2005 an application was filed for compromise between receiver and Director of M/s. Bellevue Hotel Company Private Ltd. Though the Company was not a party in original suit, the revision as framed and filed was decided on the terms and conditions of the compromise entered into between the receiver and the Director of M/s Bellevue Hotel Company Private Ltd. vide compromise decree dated 21.5.2005. Petitioner who is one of the trustee and his forefather has created Trust and in order to protect the trust, filed present writ petition challenging the compromise decree dated 21.5.2005. In writ petition, interim order was granted and counter and rejoinder affidavits have already been exchanged.

4. The basic ground raised by petitioner in presen