HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 471/2007 (M/S) Sri Karan Singh Jatav. …Petitioner Versus District Judge, Dehradun and others. …Respondents Shri S.K. Jain, Advocate for petitioner, Shri Sudhir Kumar, Brief Holder for the State/respondent no.1, Shri L.K. Tewari, holding brief of Shri J.P. Joshi, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 to 7. Dated: March 12, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 14.05.2007 passed by the District Judge, Dehradun in Rent Control Appeal no. 212 of 2006 (Smt. Sarla and others vs. Shri Karan Singh Tatav) whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent/landlord was allowed and the judgment and order dated 23.11.2006 passed by the Prescribed Authority was set-aside. 3. Perusal of the record reveals that respondent/ landlord filed a release application under Section 21(1) (a) of U.P. Act no. 13 of 1972 for his personal need of shop No. 324, situated at Dehradun Road Rishikesh, District Dehradun before the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Rishikesh, Dehradun which was registered as P.A. Case no. 1 of 2006 in which the parties led their evidence and after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, the release application of the landlord was rejected. Aggrieved by the order of Prescribed Authority dated 23.11.2006, the landlords moved Rent Control Appeal no. 212 of 2006 before the District Judge, 2 Dehradun and the said appeal was allowed by the Appellate Court vide his judgment and order dated 14.05.2007. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Appellate Court, the tenant/ petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. During the pendency of this writ petition, the respondent/landlords have filed a Civil Misc. Application before this Court on 09.03.2010 with the request that the writ petition has rendered infructuous and the same may be dismissed as such. In support of the contentions made in the application an affidavit of Sri Devendra Singh Rawat has been filed and in para-2 of the affidavit it has been stated on oath that apart from the present petition, one Small Cause Courts (S.C.C.) Revision no. 6 of the 2010 (Karan Singh vs. Smt. Sarla Rawat and others) is also pending against the petitioner and during pendency of the said revision the petitioner has arrived into an compromise and in the said compromise the petitioner Karan Singh has accepted the release order with the request that vacation order may not be executed till 30.04.2010. 5. A copy of said compromise is annexed as annexure no. 1 to the accompanying affidavit which was verified during pendency of J.S.C.C. Revision no. 6 of 2010 before the District Judge, Dehradun. The terms and conditions of the compromised arrived at in between the parties are as follows:- 1. That the revisionist shall vacate the property in question in compliance of the decree passed in S.C.C.Suit No. 37 of 1994-Shere Singh vs. Karan Singh by 30.04.2011. In case the revisionist does not vacate the property by the said date, the 3 opposite party shall be entitled to take possession by executing the decree; 2. That the amount deposited by the revisionist in the Court below in S.C.C. Suit No. 37 of 1994 shall be withdrawn by the opposite parties. The revisionist shall pay mesne profits upto 30.04.2011; 3. That the writ petition filed by the revisionist in the Hon’ble Court at Nainital against the release order shall be withdrawn by him. The release order stands confirmed subject however, to fact that it shall be not executed upto 30.04.2011; 4. That S.C.C. Misc. No. 117 of 2010- Karan Singh vs. Sarla Rawat pending before the Addl. District Judge/F.T.C. No.5, Dehradun shall be withdrawn by the revisionist; 5. That the revision be decided in terms of this compromise and the same be made part of the decree/formal order. 6. Thus, keeping in view the facts narrated above that the parties have entered into a compromise now there is no necessity to keep the writ petition pending. The writ petition has rendered infructuous and is dismissed accordingly. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri S.K. Jain submits that he does not have any information so far the compromise is concerned. He prayed that, in case, if it is found that the said compromise was not, at all, done, he may be given liberty to move an application for recalling this order. 8. Permission granted. 9. All the pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. (V.K. Bist, J.) 12.03.2010 NCM: