Chelameswar, J. -- 1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant filed civil suit under section 12(1)(a) of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for eviction of the respondent and recovery of arrears of rent. On 16.4.2002 the suit came to be decreed ex parte. The said decree came to be set aside on an application filed by the respondent with a direction to file the written statement and also deposit the entire arrears within 30 days in the Court.

3. On 25.7.2004 a compromise memo signed by both the parties came to be filed under which the respondent acknowledged his liability to pay arrears of rent to the appellant to the tune of Rs.11,710/- and also costs quantified to Rs.4,000/-. The respondent also agreed to pay the amount within a period of six months. It was also specifically agreed as follows:

“H. If the defendant violates any of the aforesaid conditions, the plaintiff shall be entitled to get the vacant possession of suit accommodation from the defendant wherein defendant shall have no objection.”

4. In view of the said compromise, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat and the civil suit was decreed in terms of the compromise.

5. On 21.7.2005 the appellant filed an application for the execution of the compromise decree alleging that the respondent failed to fulfil his obligations arising out of the compromise decree and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to recover possession of the premises. The events that followed are narrated by the High Court in the judgment under appeal as follows :

“On 4.10.2005 after appearance respondent filed objections wherein it was alleged that signatures were obtained by the petitioner on the said compromise under undue influence and no receipt was issued by the petitioner for a sum of Rs.10,000/-, which was paid by the respondent. The said application was dismissed by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 24.10.2005 and it was directed that since the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree, therefore, warrant of possession be issued. Again on 9.11.2005 objections were filed in which adjustment of Rs.25,000/- was claimed. Vide order dated 22.11.2005 objections filed by the respondent was dismissed, however 15 days time was granted to deposit the amount. Since the amount was deposited by the respondent, therefore, vide order dated 23.12.2005 Executing Court dismissed the execution holding that since the relief of possession of suit accommodation was in alternate and the respondent has deposited the amount though belatedly, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for alternative relief and the execution petition was dismissed, against which an appeal was filed on 7.1.2006 and vide order dated 16.3.2006 learned appellate Court held that the Executing Court has no jurisdiction to go behind the decree but no relief was granted to the petitioner against which prit petition was filed by the petitioner on 5.2.2006, which was numbered as Writ Petition No.6163/06 and vide order dated 8.2.2007 writ petition was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Executing Court with direction to decide the points framed by the writ Court for determination.” (Emphasis supplied)

6. The operative part of the order reads as follows :

“10. It is for this reason, I am constrained to remand the case to Executing Court for deciding the issue again arising out of the execution application filed by the petitioner. The Executing Court will decide the application keeping in view the law laid down in Nai Bahu case {Smt. Nai Bahu v. Lala Ramnarayan and others [(1978)1 SCC 58]}, and any other case which governs the field and will record categorical finding on following issues :

1. Whether compromise decree dated 25.7.2005 is nullity in so far as it relates to a relief of eviction of respondent from the suit house?

2. If not then whether default alleged is made out by the petitioner so as to entitle him to execute the decree for eviction?

7. On remand, by