JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - This is a petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India arising out of proceedings under the U.P. Act XIII of 1972. This petition was filed on eth August, 1986. Respondent No. 3 was present in court. He accepted the notice of this petition as .veil as on behalf of Respondent No. 4. Now counter and rejoinder affidavits have been filed. 2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The Petitioner was in judicial service of this State. He took the property in dispute on rent in the year 1966. Thereafter he was transferred to various places and ultimately he retired as District Judge and now he is residing at Jhansi. 4. The landlord moved a release application. In those proceedings on 1.02.1979 the Petitioner entered into a compromise with the landlord-Respondent agreeing that he will vacate the premises on 31.12.1983. The execution of the compromise has not been denied. He did not vacate the premises and thereafter the landlord-Respondent moved an application for enforcement of the re ease order. Since the compromise had been entered into and the Petitioner was to vacate the premises on 31st December, 1983 and inspire of the agreement he did not vacate the premises, I do not think it a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise also, I do not find any merit in this petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed in liming. The interim order dated 8th August, 19e6 is hereby vacated. The executing court is directed to take steps to enforce the release order as expeditiously as possible. If necessary, police force may be provided to enforce the release order. 5. A copy of this order may be given to the learned Counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within two days.