- (1.) Heard Sri H.P. Pandey for the petitioners and Sri Shiv Ram Singh for respondent No. 1. It is firstly contended that by insertion of Section 2(1)(bb), w.e.f. 26.9.1994, by Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulations of Letting, Rent & Eviction) (Amendment) Act, 1995 (U.P. Act No. 5 of 1995), the Act No. 13 of 1972 itself became inapplicable to a building, belong to or vested in a charitable or religious institution, and, therefore, proceedings initiated by Rent Control and Eviction Officer (hereinafter referred to as "R.C.E.O") and Revisional Court, under Act 13 of 1972, rendered wholly illegal and without jurisdiction, since, the same could not have continued thereafter.
(2.) It is further contended that petitioner sought to file a compromise dated 19.7.1989 before Revisional Court and that has also been rejected wrongly.
(3.) However, in my view, both the submissions are thoroughly misconceived and deserve to be rejected. The issue of compromise having already been nullified as a consequence of the revisional order dated 24.10.1991 cannot be allowed to be agitated at this stage now when the proceedings consequent to the revisional order dated 24.10.1991 have also undergone.;