K.N. Singh, J. - (1.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the Prescribed Authority, Allahabad, dated 7 -9 -1978 rejecting the Petitioners prayer to decide the dispute in accordance with a compromise alleged to have been arrived at between the parties.
(2.) THE Petitioners are tenants of a portion of building No. 59 Vivekanand Marg, Allahabad, which is a multistoried building. Shailendra Chowdhry, who is the landlord of the premises, let out the ground floor to the Petitioners in the year 1948 on a rent of Rs. 60/ - per mensem. In 1955, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 85/ -. The landlord appears to have let out two more rooms to the Petitioners, as a result of which there was further enhancement of rent and the Petitioners have been paying Rs. 155/ - per mensem as rent. Shailendra Chowdhry filed an application under Section 21 of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, for the eviction of the Petitioners from the portion in their occupation on the ground floor on the ground that he required the building for his own personal use and occupation. Proceedings under Section 21 of the Act remained pending for a long time and the notice of the proceedings could not be served on the Petitioners. At one stage the application was rejected in default of the landlord. Thereupon, the landlord went up in revision before the District Judge who set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority dismissing the application in default and remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority for deciding the same in accordance with law. After the remand, notices were again issued to the Petitioners, but the same were not served on them. The Prescribed Authority passed an order on 13 -2 -1978 to proceed exparte against the Petitioners. The Petitioners appeared and filed an application for setting aside the exparte order and their application was allowed. The Petitioners further made an application on 19th May, 1978, to the effect that a compromise was entered into between the parties under which the Petitioners had agreed to pay enhanced rent to the landlord and in his turn the landlord had agreed to withdraw the proceedings. The landlord appeared and contested the application on the ground that no compromise had been entered into between the parties. The Prescribed Authority after hearing the parties held that there was no compromise between the parties and as such it directed that the case may proceed on merits. Aggrieved, the Petitioners have approached this Court by means of this petition for quashing of the order dated 7 -9 -1978. It appears that there was no written compromise entered into between the parties, nor was any such compromise filed before the Prescribed Authority. The Petitioners' case was that they were being harassed by the proceedings under Section 21 of the Act as the landlord wanted to enhance the rent. At the instance of the Petitioner, Dr. S.N. Seth, who has his clinic in the neighbourhood of the building in dispute, intervened in the matter and negotiated the compromise between the parties. By the intervention of Dr. S.N. Seth the landlord agreed to withdraw the proceedings provided the Petitioners agreed to pay enhanced rent. On 14th March, 1977, the Petitioners and the landlord both agreed to compromise the matter in the presence of Dr. S.N. Seth. The Petitioners further assert that they paid rent for the months of January and February, 1977, at the rate of Rs. 235/ - instead of Rs. 155/ -, the old rent, and the landlord executed a receipt that very day to the Petitioners for having accepted enhanced rent. The Petitioners have further asserted that the landlord had undertaken to withdraw the proceedings but when be failed to do that the Petitioners filed an application for disposing of the application made under Section 21 in terms of the compromise. The landlord Shailendra Chowdhry filed an objection before the Prescribed Authority denying the compromise. He asserted that he did not know Dr. S.N. Seth at all, he never agreed to drop the proceedings in lieu of the enhancement of rent. He further asserted that the Petitioners on their own voluntarily enhanced the rent and paid the same which he readily accepted. Dr. S.N. Seth filed his own affidavit before the Prescribed Authority supporting the Petitioners' case. No affidavit in reply to the affidavit of Dr. S.N. Seth was filed by the landlord although he had filed a reply to the application of the Petitioners. The Petitioners had also filed a copy of the receipt and vouchers alleged to have been executed by the landlord accepting the enhanced rent on 14th March, 1977.
(3.) THE Prescribed Authority rejected the affidavit of Dr. S.N. Seth on three grounds, firstly, that in his affidavit Dr. S.N. Seth had given minute details of the compromise which an independent and unconcerned person was not supposed to know; secondly, Dr. Seth's name was inserted in ink in the application filed by the Petitioners on 19th May, 1978, for disposing of the application in terms of the compromise although the entire application was typed, and, thirdly the insertion of Dr. S.N. Seth's name in the application by ink created a doubt on the veracity of the case set up by the Petitioners. On these findings the Prescribed Authority held that no reliance could be placed on his affidavit and as such the Petitioners had failed to prove the alleged compromise. The Prescribed Authority further held that the voucher and the receipt produced by the Petitioners merely proved payment of rent at enhanced rate but that did not prove the compromise.;