N. D. Ojha, J. - (1.) AN application was made by respondent No. 3 under section 21 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for release of an accommodation in the tenancy of the petitioner on the ground that he bona fide needed it for his own use. It appears to have been filed some time in the early part of the year 1976, the number of the case being 13 of 1976. The case went on for about a year and on 21st March, 1977 the parties filed a compromise application whereby the application under section 21 was to be allowed and the petitioner was given three-and-a-half years' time to vacate the accommodation in question. AN order was passed disposing of the application under section 21 in terms of the aforesaid compromise. The three-and-a-half years' period allowed to the petitioner to vacate the accommodation was to expire on 20th September, 1980. The petitioner took full advantage of the order passed on the basis of the compromise application. Fifteen days before the expiry of three-and-a-half years, however he instituted a suit on 5th September, 1980 for cancellation of the order dated 21st March, 1977 passed on the basis of the compromise aforesaid on the ground that it was illegal and void. He also made an application for temporary injunction restraining the respondent No. 3 from evicting the petitioner in execution of the order dated 21st March, 1977. This application was allowed by the trial court by passing an order staying the execution of the order dated 2lst March, 1977. AN appeal was preferred against that order by respondent No. 3 which was allowed by the Civil Judge on 13th February, 1981. The Civil Judge has, inter alia, taken the view that the suit was barred by the provisions of order 23 rule 3-A, CPC and consequently no interim injunction could be granted to the petitioner as prayed for. It is this order of the Civil Judge which is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition.
(2.) HAVING heard counsel for the petitioner at some length, I am of opinion that the impugned order does not suffer either from any manifest error of law or error of jurisdiction which may justify interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. By section 74, CPC (Amendment) Act 1976, inter alia, an Explanation was added to order 23 rule 3 CPC which reads : "Explanation-An agreement or compromise which is viod or voidable under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule." By the same section a new rule (3-A) was inserted which reads : "3-A. Bar to suit.-No suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful." Section 34 (1) (f) of the Act provides : "34. Powers of various authorities and procedure to be followed by them - (1) The District Magistrate, the prescribed authority or any appellate or revising authority shall for the purposes of holding any inquiry or hearing any appeal or revision under this Act have the same powers as are vested in the Civil Court under the CPC, 1908 (Act No. V of 1908), when trying a suit, in respect of the following matters namely- (a) ............... (b) .................. (c).................... (d) ..................... (e) ..................... (f) recording a lawful agreement, compromise or satisfaction and making an order in accordance therewith." In view of section 34 (1) (f) the provisions in regard to recording a lawful agreement, compromise or satisfaction and making an order in accordance therewith contained in Order 23 rule 3, CPC were applicable to the application under section 21 which was decided on 21st March, 1977, and the aforesaid order will be deemed to have been passed in accordance with the aforesaid provisions.
(3.) IT was urged by counsel for the petitioner that Order 23 rule 3 CPC was not applicable for two reasons (1) because it applies only to a suit and (2) because of section 38 of the Act. I find no substance in either of these two arguments. Section 34 (1) (f) of the Act makes the provision of order 23 rule 3 CPC which is the relevant provision in regard to recording a lawful agreement, compromise or satisfaction and framing an order in accordance therewith applicable to the proceedings under the Act. The word "suit" used in order 23 rule 3 CPC will necessarily have to be interpreted in a manner so as to include an application under section 21 of the Act for otherwise section 34 (1) (f) of the Act would be rendered nugatory.;