Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) The petition has been filed against the judgment and final order of the learned District Judge, Badaun dated 4-1-1986. The learned District Judge had parties at the Bar, before him. Before him it was stated that the landlord would be prepared to offer an alternative and to let out a godown to the tenant Mst. Anwari Jahan Begum. The rent would remain the same. The landlord further agreed to the proposition of the tenant that she be granted four months' time to vacate the accommodation. In these circumstances there was nothing left for the learned District Judge to decide and accordingly in terms of the compromise before him as mentioned in his order of 4th January 1986, the appeal was decided. The tenant-petitioner has assailed this order of compromise in the present writ petition with the plea that she had not given tacit instructions to here counsel to entered into such a compromise. This seems to be a ridiculous proposition today after one year and three months. In fact this petition should never have been filed because the tenant has lost nothing and still will have an alternative accommodation.
(2.) The petitioner will vacate the accommodation forthwith and move into the alternative accommodation offered by the landlord. The learned District Judge's order was not complied with within the time so stipulated. The petitioner was meant to vacate the accommodation after four months from the date of the order; this she had not done.
(3.) The order that the compromise may remain effective even today, it is equitable that the petitioner will mitigate the damage for hanging on to the accommodation which she otherwise supposed to vacate by paying 25 per cent more rent, effective from May, 1986 till the date she will vacate the accommodation and more into the alternative accommodation offered. This 25 per cent enhancement which she will pay is applicable to the old accommodation which will be vacated and not to the alternative which she will walk into.;