S.U. Khan, J. - (1.) Writ Petition has been filed by the tenant I.B.P. Company Limited, and is directed against the order of the Rent Control and Eviction Officer dated 31.12.1993 under Section 29-A(5) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 fixing the rent of the tenanted accommodation at Rs. 19528.50P. Review against the said order was dismissed on 15.9.1994. Said order is also challenged through the writ petition.
(2.) For non-payment of the amount of rent fixed by the Rent Control and Eviction Officer landlord M.L. Dudeja filed S.C.C. Suit No. 38 of 1997 against the tenant I.B.P. Company Ltd. For eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. The revision is directed against an interim order passed in the said suit.
(3.) In these cases on the persuasion of the Court learned Counsel for the parties, after consulting their clients, agreed in principle to settle the dispute through compromise. The matter was heard on 3 or 4 dates. With regard to some of the terms of compromise, parties agreed. However in respect of other terms of the compromise parties were at issue, hence, these points are to be decided through judgment of the Court. Accordingly this judgment is partly on the basis of compromise and partly it is decision of the Court. Such a course is an extension of the doctrine of court sponsored compromise embodied in Section 89 C.P.C.(introduced in the year 2000). Such procedural innovation is permissible while hearing writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.;