PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. ( 1 ) VIDE IA. No. 5852/06, Delhi Financial Corporation seeks two reliefs as under :"a) Direct that the compromise is binding on the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim on account of mesne profits/damages from uoi and/or DFC. b) In the alternative, direct that the undertaking of DFC is not binding on DFC and the undertaking be deemed to be withdrawn. " ( 2 ) A brief backdrop of the relevant facts necessary for adjudication of the application may be noted. ( 3 ) CLAIMING to be the owners of property No. 6 and 7, E-Block, connaught Place, New Delhi, popularly known as Saraswati Bhawan, plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking ejectment of Union of India from the aforenoted premises. Claim of mesne profits and arrears of rent together with interest was made. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs, Union of India, acting through the collector Delhi, took on rent the suit premises. ( 5 ) PLAINTIFFS state that vide notice dated 6. 3. 1995, duly served upon the Union of India, tenancy was determined and since rent was more than Rs. 3,500/- per month, defendant was liable to be ejected from the suit premises. Mesne profits w. e. f. 1. 5. 1995 have been claimed. ( 6 ) DEFENCE of Union of India is that lease in respect of the property has not been executed through a registered instrument and, therefore, possession of Union of India is that of a lessee. (What ever it means ). Surprisingly enough, after so stating Union of India has stated that it was a case of lease in perpetuity inasmuch as the lease was liable to be renewed on mutually agreed terms and the plaintiffs had no option but to continue with the lease. It is stated that the notice dated 6. 3. 1995 relied upon by the plaintiffs cannot terminate the lease. Admitting that the monthly rent was more than Rs. 3,500/-, suit was opposed on the ground that Union of India continued to be a tenant. ( 7 ) THE unregistered lease empowers Union of India to further sub-let the property taken on lease or part thereof. 3. 1995 relied upon by the plaintiffs cannot terminate the lease. Admitting that the monthly rent was more than Rs. 3,500/-, suit was opposed on the ground that Union of India continued to be a tenant. ( 7 ) THE unregistered lease empowers Union of India to further sub-let the property taken on lease or part thereof. ( 8 ) DURING pendency of the suit, DFC sought to be impleaded as a defendant stating that certain portions of the leased premises were in turn sub-leased to it and it started paying the rent directly to the landlords who accepted the same. Case pleaded by DFC was that having accepted rent from dfc, plaintiffs accepted it as a direct tenant under them. ( 9 ) SAID application was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Challenge in appeal failed. Matter reached the Supreme Court. ( 10 ) SUPREME Court directed that without prejudice to the stand of the plaintiffs, D. F. C. should be impleaded as a party. The order was passed by the Supreme Court on 16. 7. 2004 DFC was thereafter impleaded as defendant No. 2. ( 11 ) ON 13. 5. 2005, plaintiffs filed IA. No. 3980/05 praying for a decree on admissions. Plaintiffs invoked Order 12 Rule 6 CPC. ( 12 ) SAID application was taken up for consideration. Arguments were heard on 16. 11. 2005. Matter was posted for hearing on 17. 11. 2005. At request of counsel for DFC, matter was adjourned to 25. 11. 2005 recording that counsel for defendant No. 2 wants time to obtain instructions. On further requests being made on 25. 11. 2005, matter was adjourned to 13. 12. 2005. ( 13 ) ON 13. 12. 2005, learned counsel for DFC made a statement which was reflected in the order dated 13. 12. 2005. The order reads as under :-"learned counsel for DFC states that DFC is ready to vacate and handover the premises to the plaintiff by 31st August,2006. Let an affidavit of undertaking be filed in this behalf within two weeks. List on 13. 1. 2006. " ( 14 ) ON 12. 1. 2006, affidavit by way of undertaking, deposed by Smt. Kiran Mahajan, Senior Manager (Legal) was filed in court. The affidavit reads as under : IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI at NEW DELHI CS ( OS) NO. List on 13. 1. 2006. " ( 14 ) ON 12. 1. 2006, affidavit by way of undertaking, deposed by Smt. Kiran Mahajan, Senior Manager (Legal) was filed in court. The affidavit reads as under : IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI at NEW DELHI CS ( OS) NO. 1570 OF 1995 V. P. Puri and Ors. Petitioners Versus Union of India and Ors. Respondents AFFIDAVIT OF UNDERTAKING I, Smt. Kiran Mahajan , working as Senior Mahajan Legal in Delhi Financial Corporation, E-Block, Saraswati Bhawan , New Delhi , do hereby solemnly Page 3 of 7 affirm and declare as under :- 1. I am working as Senior manager in Defendant No. 2 Corporation and as such am well conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the defendant No. 2 herein shall not induct any other person in the suit premises and shall handover vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises to the plaintiffs/landlord on or before 31. 8. 2006. 3. That the defendant No. 2 herein shall pay to the plaintiffs/landlords future compensation for use and occupation of the suit premises month by month before the 10th day of every month. 4. I am the defendant No. 2 hereby give this undertaking as per this court order/direction dated 13. 12. 2005 in the above mentioned suit. sd /- DEPONENT VERIFICATION : Verified at New Delhi on this 12th day of 2006 that the contents of the above mentioned affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom. sd /- DEPONENT. ( 15 ) IN view of the undertaking furnished by DFC, in terms of the affidavit filed by Smt. Kiran Mahajan, on 13. 1. 2006 following order was passed :"plaintiff and defendant No. 2 have settled the matter. Plaintiffs have filed this suit for possession and mesne profits. According to the plaintiffs, suit premises, namely, 6 and 7, Saraswati Bhawan, E-Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi were let out to the defendant/uoi. UOI did not contest the matter and its defence was stuck off. However, it appears that as per some arrangement between the UOI and Delhi Finance Corporation, suit premises (except basement)were given by the UOI to the Delhi Finance Corporation/ defendant No. 2. UOI did not contest the matter and its defence was stuck off. However, it appears that as per some arrangement between the UOI and Delhi Finance Corporation, suit premises (except basement)were given by the UOI to the Delhi Finance Corporation/ defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 has been paying the rent in respect of the suit premises to the plaintiffs and it claimed that it had become tenant under the plaintiffs. As per the settlement arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendant no. 2, the defendant No. 2 has agreed to vacate the premises and basement, which is in possession of the UOI, except one room (which is stated to be in possession of the plaintiffs) by 31st August,2006. It is also agreed that the defendant No. 2 shall continue to pay the plaintiffs future compensation for use and occupation of the suit premises month by month before 10th of every month. Affidavit of Ms. Kiran Mahajan, working as Senior Manager (Legal) in the Delhi finance Corporation is filed giving an undertaking to the aforesaid effect. This affidavit of undertaking is taken on record and the undertaking is hereby accepted. In terms thereof, decree is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against defendant No. 2 in respect of ground floor, first floor and second floor of the suit premises except one room on the first floor. This decree, however, shall not be executed till 31st August,2006. In so far as basement of the premises, which is in possession of UOI/ defendant No. 1 is concerned, matter is fixed for arguments on 30th January,2006. In view of the above, Ias. No. 10995/99, 11322/99, 11143/2000, 3980/2005 and 7990/2005 have become infructuous and are disposed of accordingly. " ( 16 ) THEREAFTER, on 15. 5. 2006, IA,. No. 5852/06 was filed praying as noted in para 1 above. ( 17 ) IN para 2 and 3 of the application, DFC has pleaded as under :-"2. The plaintiff was charging for use and occupation was being taken by the plaintiff from DFC since 2001. Before 2001, the rent was being taken without any order of the court and hence no claim for the said rent can be made by the plaintiffs. The plaintiff was charging for use and occupation was being taken by the plaintiff from DFC since 2001. Before 2001, the rent was being taken without any order of the court and hence no claim for the said rent can be made by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs settlement with DFC was a clear representation that the settlement was not only with DFC but over all settlement in the matter, particularly as the case of the plaintiff was with that DFC was inducted by the UOI and hence represents the UOI. The DFC cannot vacate the premises except with the consent/knowledge of the UOI through whom it was inducted, being an undertaking owned 100% by the Govt. of India and having come into the premises through the Govt. of India/collector. In these circumstances, the undertaking consent of the plaintiff in settling the matter with DFC was settlement of the matter with the defendant UOI also. 3. The undertaking of DFC was on the specific understanding by DFC/uoi that all the disputes were settled on the agreement to handover the suit premises on DFC continuing to pay rent at the agreed rate till the date of handing over of the premises. " ( 18 ) ORDER 23 Rule 3 CPC reads as under :-3. Compromise of suit- Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a suit has been adjusted wholly or in part by any lawful agreement or compromise [in writing and signed by the parties], or where the defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the suit. The Court shall order such agreement, compromise or satisfaction to be recorded, and shall pass a decree in accordance therewith [so far as it relates to the parties to the suit, whether or not the subject-matter of the agreement, compromise or satisfaction is the same as the subject-matter of the suit]: [provided that where it is alleged by one party and denied by the other that an adjustment or satisfaction has been arrived at, the Court shall decide the question; but no adjournment shall be granted for the purpose of deciding the question, unless the Court, for reasons to be recorded, thinks fit to grant such adjournment. ] [explanation: - An agreement or compromise which is void or voidable under the indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), shall not be deemed to be lawful within the meaning of this rule. ]" ( 19 ) IN the report published as AIR 1997 Pandh 155, Chand kaur Vs. Raj Kaur, it was observed as under :"12. Finality of decisions is an underlying principle of all adjudicating forums. Thus creation of further litigation should never be the basis of a compromise between the parties. Rule 3 (a) of Order 23 of the Code further provides that no suit shall lie to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise on which the decree is based was not lawful. The scheme of Order 23, rule 3 of the Code is to avoid multiplicity of litigation and permit parties to amicably come to a settlement which is lawful, is in writing and a voluntary act on the part of the parties. The Court can be instrumental in having an agreed compromise effected and finality attached to the same. The Court should never be party to imposition of a compromise upon an unwilling party. " ( 20 ) IN the report published as AIR 2003 SC 4596 , jineshwardas and Ors. Vs. Smt. Jagrani and Anr. , in para 8, it was observed as under :"that apart we are also of the view that a judgment or decree passed as a result of consensus arrived at before Court, cannot always be said to be one passed on compromise or settlement and adjustment. It may, at times, be also a judgment on admission, as in this case. " ( 21 ) TO appreciate the controversy, the backdrop in which undertaking was submitted becomes relevant. Stage was the consideration of plaintiffs application (IA. 3980/05) which prayed for a decree for possession on admission. In a nutshell, plaintiffs were seeking a decree for possession on admission, pleading that to obtain a decree of ejectment, plaintiffs had to establish three things :-a) Relationship of landlord and tenant; b) That rent was more than Rs. 3,500/- per month, therefore, Delhi Rent control Act,1958 was not attracted; and c) That the tenancy stood determined. ( 22 ) ON the first two limbs case pleaded by the plaintiffs was that the relationship of landlord and tenant was not in dispute. That the rent was more than Rs. 3,500/- per month, therefore, Delhi Rent control Act,1958 was not attracted; and c) That the tenancy stood determined. ( 22 ) ON the first two limbs case pleaded by the plaintiffs was that the relationship of landlord and tenant was not in dispute. That the rent was more than Rs. 3,500/- per month was also an admitted position. Only thing which required consideration was whether the tenancy stood stood determined as per law. Notice determining tenancy was not in dispute. Only thing which had to be seen was, whether the notice in question validly determined the tenancy. ( 23 ) AT that stage, counsel for defendant No. 2, after arguing the matter on 16. 11. 2005, on the next date i. e. 17. 11. 2005, sought and was granted an adjournment to obtain instructions. On 13. 12. 2005 counsel made a statement reflected in the order as noted in para 13 above. ( 24 ) DFC informed the court that DFC was ready to vacate and handover the premises to the plaintiffs by 31. 8. 2006. ( 25 ) STATEMENT made by the counsel was made good in the form of the affidavit of undertaking furnished to the court on 12. 1. 2006 by smt. Kiran Mahajan, Senior Manager (Legal) resulting in the order dated 13. 1. 2006 being passed. ( 26 ) THE stage when statement was made by the counsel for d. F. C. and undertaking was furnished, as noted above, was plaintiffs application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC being considered. Nobody was talking about mesne profits. ( 27 ) NEITHER in the statement of learned counsel for DFC nor in the affidavit by way of undertaking nor in the order passed by this Court on 13. 1. 2006 is there a whisper that the concession/admission of DFC was conditional or a part of a composite agreement that plaintiffs waive right to claim mesne profits. ( 28 ) IN my opinion, DFC is now attempting to resile from the compromise or settlement, made between the parties and as reflected in the undertaking of DFC and court order dated 13. 1. 2006. ( 29 ) IN any case, as observed in Jineshwardas's case (supra), it has to be treated as a case of judgment on admission. I treat the order dated 13. 1. 2006 as a judgment on admission. 1. 2006. ( 29 ) IN any case, as observed in Jineshwardas's case (supra), it has to be treated as a case of judgment on admission. I treat the order dated 13. 1. 2006 as a judgment on admission. ( 30 ) IF D. F. C. is right in what it alleges, the suit as a whole should have been disposed of on 13. 1. 2006 because only 2 things were in issue. Firstly whether plaintiffs were entitled to a decree for possession and secondly whether they were entitled to mesne profits. But the suit was not disposed of, obviously issue of mesne profits had to be decided. IA. No. 5852/05 is accordingly dismissed. I refrain from imposing costs.