- (1.) THE present writ petition has been filed inter alia against the order dated 3.3.2011 passed by the Prescribed Authority (Judge Small Cause) Jhansi in Execution Case No.136 of 2008 (Munna Lal Vs. Kusum Lata) arising out of Rent Case No.88 of 2001 (Munna Lal Vs. Chandra Prakash) and the order dated 21.5.2011 passed by the District Judge, Jhansi in Revision No.65 of 2011 (Kusum Lata Vs. Munna Lal).
(2.) A bare perusal of the record goes to show that Late Chandra Prakash Agrawal husband of the petitioner no.1 and the father of the petitioners no.2 and 3 was, admittedly, a tenant of the premises in dispute. A suit being Prescribed Authority Case No.88 of 2001 for ejectment was filed against Late Chandra Prakash Agrawal, husband of the petitioner no.1 under Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Act No.13 of 1972 by the respondent no.2. In the said case, the compromise was entered into between the parties with the condition that at the time of delivering the possession of the premises in dispute, the respondent no.2 will pay Rs.50,000/- and from 5.4.2002 the husband of the petitioner no.1 will pay the rent @ 600/- per month till the vacation of the premises in dispute and the possession will be delivered after eight years from the date of passing the order i.e. 31.7.2010. It appears that Chandra Prakash Agarwal, husband of the petitioner no.1 expired on 9.10.2003 leaving behind his wife and his two sons namely Manoj Kumar Agrawal and Manish Kumar Agrawal i.e. respondent nos. 2 and 3 respectively, as such, the joint tenancy between them and the rent was continued to be paid by the petitioners. According to the compromise, the premises in dispute was to be vacated by the petitioners on 31.7.2010 but the said premises in dispute was not vacated and as such a suit for injunction was filed by the petitioners. Consequently, the respondent no.2 filed an execution application before the court below wherein the petitioners have filed their objection The Court below vide order dated 3.3.2011 rejected the objection and directed the Police Officer to get the possession of the premises in dispute in favour of the respondent no.2, Landlord and also directed that the required money be paid by the respondent no.2, Landlord to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the order dated 3.3.2011, the petitioners filed a revision and the same was also dismissed on 21.5.2011. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It has been admitted by the petitioners that a compromise was entered into between the husband of the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.2. According to the said compromise, the premises in dispute was to be vacated on 31.7.2010, as such, the execution of the compromise has been admitted. After the death of Chandra Prakash Agrawal, the petitioners have filed a suit for injunction on certain allegations. Earlier tenancy was continued in favour of the petitioners and the rent was continuously paid by the petitioners and there is nothing on record that any fresh tenancy has entered into between the parties. The petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Chandra Prakash Agrawal, husband of the petitioner no.1 and the father of the petitioner nos. 2 and 3, they are bound by the terms and conditions of the compromise dated 31.7.2002. 5. The court below has given cogent reason in deciding the objection of the petitioners. No injunction is operative in the injunction suit filed by the petitioners. 6. In view of what has been discussed, herein above, I do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the findings recorded by the courts below in the impugned orders and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed . 7. The writ petition is dismissed.;