J.C. Gupta, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19.7.1993 passed by the Prescribed Authority respondent No. 1. copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition.
(2.) Parties' counsel S/Sri T. P. Singh for the petitioner and Sankatha Rai and B. B. Paul have been heard and record has also been perused.
(3.) The impugned order has been passed in the proceedings pending before the Prescribed Authority respondent No. 1 on the application moved by landlady respondent No. 2 for the enforcement of the order dated 19.10.1987 passed on the application moved by the landlady under Section 21 (1) (a) of the U. P. Act No. XIII of 1972. It appears that after filing the written statement, the petitioner who was occupying the premises in question as tenant entered into a compromise with the landlady wherein he accepted the bona fide need of the landlady and on the basis of the said compromise, release application was allowed by the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 19.10.1987. In the said compromise, the landlady also agreed and allowed five years time to the tenant-petitioner to vacate the shop in question. After the expiry of the aforesaid period of five years, when the possession of the tenanted shop was not handed over back to the landlady, the landlady moved the Prescribed Authority for the enforcement of the order by filing an application under Section 23 of the Act. The petitioner resisted the claim of the landlady by filing objections to the effect that there had not been any adjudication of the personal need of the landlady while deciding the release application. It has also been pleaded that before the expiry of period of five years, the parlies entered into an oral settlement by which the petitioner was allowed to continue in occupation at the enhanced rate of rent at the rate of Rs. 2,400 per month. This fresh contract was entered into on 4,2.1988 when petitioner's mother died. It has also been pleaded that the parlies are relatives and, therefore, only an oral settlement was arrived at. In pursuance of the said settlement, the tenant started paying rent to the landlady al the aforesaid enhanced rate and the same was accepted by the landlady without any objection. The landlady filed her reply, infer alia, pleading that the order of release was legal and the Prescribed Authority has no Jurisdiction to go behind the said order nor the petitioner has a right to challenge the correctness of the release order dated 19.10.1987 in the execution proceedings. It has also been denied by her that there has been any oral settlement as alleged by the petitioner. As regards to the payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 2.400 per month, the case of the landlady was that the rent was enhanced at the time when the parties had entered into compromise and since the tenant had agreed to enhance the rent, five years period was allowed to him to vacate the shop in question. However, inadvertently the said term could not be incorporated in the compromise filed before the Prescribed Authority but an agreement on stamp paper was executed in between the parties. The petitioner denied his signatures on the said agreement.;