Yatindra Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is a landlord's writ petition against the order dated 9.2.1994 passed by Respondent No. 1 holding that there is a deemed vacancy in the premises in dispute. Initially one Frank Rozaro was tenant of the first floor of house No. 265/266 -A, Mohalla Kabari Bazar, Meerut Cantt. The landlord filed an application on 10.3.1993 for release of the premises in dispute for his personal need. In this proceeding there was a compromise on 23.4.1993. This compromise application was allowed on the same date and on the same date possession was also handed over to the landlord. Respondent No. 2 had filed an application on 27.3.1993 before the respondent No. 1 on the ground that there is a vacancy in the premises in dispute and the same may be allotted to him. It is on this application that the present proceeding started. The respondent No. 1 after giving opportunities to the parties had declared the premises to be vacant by his order dated 9.2.1994 (Annexure -6 to the writ petition). Hence the present petition was filed.
(2.) THE compromise application filed by the landlord and tenant is on the record. This is Annexure -1 to this writ petition. In this compromise application it is admitted by the tenant that the need of the landlord is bonafide and genuine. The order of the Prescribed Authority was passed in view of the compromise filed by the tenant. There is no illegality in the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. It cannot be said that the possession of the landlord was unauthorised. The need of the landlord is proved by the admission made by the tenant in his compromise application. The respondent No. 1 has wrongly ignored the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 9.2.1994 is quashed. No order as to cost.;