- (1.) S. U. Khan, J. List revised. No one appears for the contesting respon dents. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) LANDLADY-respondent No. 2-Jwala Devi since deceased and survived by the legal representatives filed release application under section 21 (1) (b) of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 against the petitioners. Petitioners 1 to 4 are tenants of one shop and petitioner No. 5 is tenant of another adjoining shop. Release ap plication was registered as Case No. 1 of 1993 on the file Prescribed Authority/civil Judge, Deoband District Saharanpur. In the release applica tion a compromise was entered into, copy of which is Annexure-1 to the writ pe tition. Compromise was entered into on 13. 8. 1993. Release application was de cided in terms of compromise on 5. 11. 1993. Thereafter, applications were filed by the petitioners before prescribed authority on 3. 8. 1995 for a direction to the landlady to reconstruct the shops and deliver possession of the same to the ten ants. Landlady filed objections to the said applications and stated that ten ants themselves did not comply with the directions of the compromise and did not deliver possession promptly. The said applications were rejected on 24. 4. 1997 by the prescribed authority hence this writ petition. In Para 7 of the writ petition it has been stated that possession was de livered by the petitioners to the landlady.
(3.) PRESCRIBED authority while rejecting the applications of the tenants did not dis-believe their version that they had delivered possession to the landlady. However, the Court below held that no direction could be issued to the landlady to re-construct the shops and deliver newly constructed shops to the tenants. In my opinion prescribed authority was not correct.;