Short Note : 1. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction against the defendant appellant on the ground that he requires the suit-house for his bona fide requirements. The defendant contested the suit denying the bonafide requirement of the plaintiff. The case did not reach the trial stage and a compromise petition was submitted on 7-10-1971 and on the basis of the compromise, a decree under O.23, R.3 was passed. The compromise contained one clause, namely, "the parties have compromised the matter. The defendant will vacate the shop on 31-3-1971 and go on paying the rent as mesne profits." In this compromise there was no mention that because the plaintiff requires the shop for his personal use and that the need is genuine, the suit is being compromised. 2. When the decree was put to execution, the judgment-debtor objected that the decree is unexecutable, because it is not based on any of the grounds mentioned under section 12 (1) of the Act. The objection found favour with the executing Court, but was repelled in first appeal. Held : In the compromise there is no mention of any ground under section 12 (1) of the Act. Neither the defendant has admitted in his written statement that plaintiff has any ground under section 12 (1) of the Act. On the contrary, he has denied that. Hence the decree is not executable. 1976 JLJ 1 (SC) relied on. 1972 JLJ 251 referred to. Appeal allowed.