RADHA KRISHNA Vs. PRATAP NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has prayed that the heirs of the petitioners be directed to redeliver the possession of the disputed accommodation to him.

(2.) The facts relating' to filing of this application are that Pratap Narain. respondent No. 1, was owner and landlord of the shops in question. Radha Krishna, petitioner No. 1, was a tenant of one of the shops carrying on business of sale of books and Mushtaq Ahmad. petitioner No. 2, was a tenant of another shop, carrying on business of sale of shoes, etc. The landlord filed an application under Section 21 (1) (b) of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the Act) against the petitioners on the ground that the shops in the tenancy of the petitioners were in a dilapidated condition and were required for the purpose of demolition and new construction. The parties entered into a compromise before the prescribed authority. They filed compromise application before him. It was agreed that the landlord will construct residential portion on the first floor and on the ground floor the shops will be constructed. Radha Krishna, petitioner No. 1, shall be provided shop of an area of 7 x 20 ft. and Mushtaq Ahmad, petitioner No. 2. shall be provided with shop of an area of 7 x 20 ft. The construction shall be completed by 30th April, 1979 and if the possession is not given by the date fixed, the landlord shall pay damages at the rate of Rs. 50 per day and if the amount is not paid, it can be recovered through the Court. The petitioner vacated the shop. Respondent No. 1 did not construct the shop. They filed an application before the prescribed authority to issue a certificate for recovery of the amount in terms of the compromise under Rule 24 of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting. Rent and Eviction) Rules, 1972 (in short the Rules). The prescribed authority allowed the application on 4th April, 1981 for recovery of the amount to the extent of two years rent. The tenant petitioners filed the present petition seeking modification of the order passed by the prescribed authority on the ground that they were entitled to Rs. 50 per day till they were given the shops as agreed upon by the parties and it could not be confined only for a period of two years.

(3.) The landlord-respondent filed a counter-affidavit admitting that the parties had entered into an agreement and a compromise application, as alleged by the petitioners, was filed before the prescribed authority and the case was decided in terms of the compromise.