JUDGMENT S. Ali Ahmad, J. The suit filed by the plaintiff-opposite party for eviction of the defendant-petitioner was decreed by the order under revision. By the impugned decree, the court below has ordered partial eviction, as indicated in the order. The defendant has come up to this Court against that order. 2. In support of the application Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad said that a compromise bad been arrived at between the petitioner and the father of the plaintiff-opposite party. According to that compromise, the petitioner had to give up possession of certain portion of the premises occupied by him and in return the opposite party was to give some other area. His grievance, is that, if at all, a decree for partial eviction had to be passed then the same should have been passed in" terms of the compromise that was arrived at between him and the father of the opposite party. There is no substance in this argument for two reasons; firstly the agreement, if at was between the father of the opposite party and the petitioner it was not between the opposite party and the petitioner. There is also nothing on the record to show that the father of the opposite party had authority to act and enter into the compromise with the petitioner. The second obstacle in the way of the petitioner is that in case the compromise was valid and was with the authority of the opposite party then steps should have been taken by the petitioner to get the compromise recorded as provided under Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure. That was not done. It may be mentioned that after the hearing of the civil revision application was taken up, an application to that effect was filed. A rejoinder to that has also been filed disputing the statement made in the application for recording compromises. I am afraid this cannot be done at this stage because evidence will have to be taken in support of the respective stand taken by the parties. I may also mention that the petitioner was examined as D. W. 8. He, while saying about the aforesaid agreement stated that he bad to vacate certain portion of the tenant premises as per compromise, but he did not do that. He also said that the plaintiff also did not perform his part of the agreement. I may also mention that the petitioner was examined as D. W. 8. He, while saying about the aforesaid agreement stated that he bad to vacate certain portion of the tenant premises as per compromise, but he did not do that. He also said that the plaintiff also did not perform his part of the agreement. Therefore, according to the evidence of the petitioner himself, the agreement was Dot given effect to. The court below, in the circumstance, had no alternative left but to find out for itself as to the portion from which the petitioner had to be evicted. While deciding this, the court below has taken into consideration the evidence of the petitioner himself who in very positive words stated that if half of the premises is left with him then his purpose will be served and the court below has done exactly the same what the petitioner wanted. Now be can not make a grievance of that. 3. Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad, however, urged that the court below erred in trying to find out as to what would meet the requirement of the defendant. He says that the court should have found out that as to what, would meet the requirement of the plaintiff-opposite party. He is right. The approach of the court below was not in accordance with law but it was in favour of the petitioner and if favour has been shown to the petitioner then he .cannot make a grievance of that; particularly when the plaintiff-opposite party accepts this .position and says that the portion from which the petitioner bas been evicted will serve the requirement of the petitioner. 4. A supplementary affidavit has been filed in this Court stating that during the pendency of this litigation, the plaintiff-opposite party has erected a double storied building with a view to establish a hotel. It is said that after the construction of that building the plaintiff opposite party can establish his shop in the new building. He, therefore, says that the requirement of the plaintiff does not now exist. The fact that the building has been constructed and a hotel has been established is not disputed. It is, however, said that the need still persists since the newly constructed building has no provision for shops and it is further said that the same does not exclusively belong to the opposite party. The fact that the building has been constructed and a hotel has been established is not disputed. It is, however, said that the need still persists since the newly constructed building has no provision for shops and it is further said that the same does not exclusively belong to the opposite party. Whether it exclusively belongs to the opposite party or not is not very important but what is important is that there is no provision in that building for a shop. According to the petitioner himself the hotel has been opened in the building and the opposite party is carrying a business of plywood and accessories. This business obviously cannot be carried on in the hotel premises. The requirement of the opposite party, therefore, subsists. 5. For these reasons, I do not find any merit in the application, which is dismissed; but without costs.