JUDGMENT : S.P. Srivastava, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the impugned order. 2. It has been disputed that the order passed in the proceedings u/s 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972) whereunder the premises in dispute had been released in favour of the landlord, was affirmed in appeal. As provided u/s 10(3) of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the order passed by the Appellate Authority became final. It is also not disputed that the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner against an order passed by the Appellate Authority was dismissed by this Court but an indulgence was granted to the Petitioner by staying his eviction from the premises in dispute on the basis of the order of the release till 15-2-93,on his filing an undertaking clearly indicating therein that he shall vacate the premises in dispute by that date. Subsequently to 15-2-93 when the Petitioner did not vacate the premises in dispute, the landlord had to initiate the proceedings u/s 23 of the aforesaid Act seeking enforcement of the eviction Order. It is in these proceedings that the Petitioner came up with a compromise alleged to have been entered into between the landlord and the tenant whereunder the Petitioner claims that he was allowed to continue as a tenant of the premises in dispute on an enhanced rent. The landlord denied the compromise and asserted that it was Farzai and fabricated. 3. The Prescribed Authority has refused to take notice of the aforesaid compromise. It has been noticed by the Prescribed Authority that as provided under Order 23 of the CPC a compromise is contemplated only during the pendency of the suit and as clearly stipulated in Order 23 Rule 4 of CPC nothing in the said' order applies to any proceedings in execution of the decree or order. Proceeding on the analogy of the aforesaid provisions- the Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the compromise set up by the Petitioner in the proceedings for the enforcement of the eviction order could not be taken notice of. Proceeding on the analogy of the aforesaid provisions- the Prescribed Authority came to the conclusion that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the compromise set up by the Petitioner in the proceedings for the enforcement of the eviction order could not be taken notice of. The Prescribed Authority has further observed that in the circumstances of the case the Petitioner cannot be permitted to back out from the undertaking given by him in pursuance of an order passed by this Court in the manner he seeks to do so specially when the landlord has clearly denied the execution of any such compromise. 4. A statutory finality stands attached to an order passed by the Appellate Authority in the proceedings u/s 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Act No, 13 of 1972. In the present case the Appellate Authority had, on an application seeking release of the accommodation in dispute filed u/s 21(1)(a) of the Act, granted the release which order has since attained finality as indicated above. Any compromise having the effect of nullifying the statutory finality of the order does not deserve any notice and can be ignored. The Prescribed Authority did not commit any error of jurisdiction while so concluding on the analogy of provisions contained in Order 23 Rule 4 of CPC Code. In this connection it should not be lost sight of that where statutes are silent and remedy has to be sought by recourse to basic principles, it is the duty of the Court to devise procedural rules by analogy and expediency. 5. On the facts as brought on record it is apparent that the tenancy of the Petitioner stood determined in its entirety by the operation of law as contemplated u/s 21(6) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. In such a situation a fresh tenancy as sought to be set-up could not be taken notice of in view of the prohibition contained in Section 11 of the aforesaid Act. 6. In the circumstances of the “present” case, I do not find it to be a fit one for the intervention of equity. The impugned order does not suffer from any such error much less manifest error of law which may justify any interference therein while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 7. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.