SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. ( 1 ) ADMIT. ( 2 ) AT request of learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal. The petitioner / landlord filed an eviction petition against the original tenant under Section 14 (1) (j) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ( for short, 'the said Act' ) seeking eviction on ground of causing substantial damage to the premises. The relevant provisions of the said Act are as under : "14. Protection of tenant against eviction. "- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made by any court or controller in favour of the landlord against a tenant: provided that the Controller may, on an application made to him in the prescribed manner, make an order for the recovery of possession of the premises on one or more of the following grounds only, namely :- (j) that the tenant has, whether before or after the commencement of this act, caused or permitted to be caused substantial damage to the premises; (10) No order for the recovery of possession of any premises shall be made on the ground specified in clause (j) of the proviso to sub-second (1) if the tenant, within such time as may be specified in this behalf by the Controller, carries out repairs to the damage caused to the satisfaction of the Controller or pays to the landlord such amount by way of compensation as the Controller may direct. " ( 3 ) THE petition was filed in August, 1997 and at the stage of evidence, a compromise was arrived at between the parties and orders were passed on 26. 07. 1999. The original tenant Shri Babu Lal has since passed away and was at the relevant time represented through his Attorney Shri Madan Pal, who was his son. Shri Madan Pal made the following statement:"on SA :-xxx Respondent is my father. Hence given me power of attorney. I identify the sign. of my father on the attorney. I have brought the original attorney with me today. Copy of the same is Ex. C1 (original seen and returned ). Shri Madan Pal made the following statement:"on SA :-xxx Respondent is my father. Hence given me power of attorney. I identify the sign. of my father on the attorney. I have brought the original attorney with me today. Copy of the same is Ex. C1 (original seen and returned ). We have mutually settled the matter and in view of the compromise entered into between petitioner and the respondent, the petitioner has given us time to vacate the premises in question by 30/11/1999. We shall hand over the vacant possession to the petitioner by that date, as agreed. " ( 4 ) THE petitioner after recording the statement of the Attorney made the following statement:"on SA :-I have heard the above statement of the son of the respondent and accept the same as correct. I have given time to the respondent to vacate the premises in question latest by 30/11/99. Necessary orders may kindly be passed for withdrawal of the case. " ( 5 ) THE trial court passed the follogwing order after recording statements of the parties:"the above statement of the parties is accepted and in view of the same, the petition is dismissed as compromised and withdrawn. Parties shall be bound by their statement. The respondent shall vacate the premises latest by 30/11/99, as agreed, and he shall not create any third party interest in the premises and shall hand over the peaceful possession of demised premises to the petitioner as stated above. Parties to bear their own costs. File be consigned to RR. " ( 6 ) THE tenant passed away after the orders had been passed on 26. 07. 1999 and the petitioner filed execution proceedings. In the execution proceedings, the legal representatives other than the son who had made the statement filed objections. These objections were dismissed by the order dated 17. 12. 2004 The objectors aggrieved by the same filed an appeal before the Additional Rent Control tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal'), which allowed the appeal vide order dated 02. 03. 2005. The petitioner has thereafter challenged the said order in the present proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 7 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. It is no doubt true that the order dated 26. 07. 1999 is not very happily worded. 03. 2005. The petitioner has thereafter challenged the said order in the present proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 7 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. It is no doubt true that the order dated 26. 07. 1999 is not very happily worded. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that in order for an execution of an eviction order, there has to be first an eviction order passed and a finding must be arrived at by the Rent Controller satisfying himself to the grounds for eviction. Since the eviction petition was filed under Section 14 (1) (j) of the said Act, it is contended that even if substantial damages were caused to the premises, would come into play and the tenant would have the right to repair the damages caused to the satisfaction of the controller or pay compensation as may be directed. Learned counsel, thus, submits that the scheme of the said Act has not been followed and all that has been recorded is a compromise. ( 8 ) INSOFAR as the recording of compromise is concerned, it is seen from the order dated 26. 07. 1999 that it is the son of the original tenant, who appeared as his Attorney along with the original Power of Attorney, which is Exhibit C-1 and compromise was arrived at between the parties and the tenant agreed to vacate the premises in question by 30. 11. 1999. After recording the statement of the parties, the petition was disposed of as compromised and withdrawn and the parties were directed to be bound by the statement. The order further goes on to record that the respondent should vacate the premises latest by 30. 11. 1999 as agreed, would not create any third-party interest and would hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises. ( 9 ) THE objections were dealt with by the Rent Controller in terms of the Order dated 17. 12. 2004 The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the statement was made in pursuance of due authority given after the matter had been contested for a period of two years and at that time no objections were raised by the other legal representatives. The objections have been filed after the demise of the original tenant. 12. 2004 The Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the statement was made in pursuance of due authority given after the matter had been contested for a period of two years and at that time no objections were raised by the other legal representatives. The objections have been filed after the demise of the original tenant. Insofar as the question of there being a compromise decree is concerned, it has been held that the parties are always at liberty to compromise the matter and the tenant is not precluded from handing over possession of the tenanted property. Thus, what is sought to be executed is the statements and undertakings recorded in Court. ( 10 ) THE Tribunal, however, differed with the said view and came to the conclusion that there was no executable decree passed. This arises from the provisions of of the said Act, which reads as under:"42. Controller to exercise powers of civil court for execution of other orders. "- Save as otherwise provided in section 41, an order made by the controller or an order passed on appeal under this Act shall be executable by the Controller as a decree of a civil court and for this purpose, the Controller shall have all the powers of a civil court. " ( 11 ) ON a reading of Section 42, in my considered view, an order made by the controller is executable. The petition was filed under Section 14 (1) (j) of the said Act and during the pendency of the proceedings instead of there being any culmination of trial and the findings arrived at, the original tenant agreed to hand over possession of the tenanted premises to the landlord through the attorney, his son. It is this undertaking in the form of an order which is now sought to be executed. ( 12 ) AS stated already, the order is not very happily worded, but the question remains whether the legal heirs of the tenant should be permitted to wriggle out of the undertaking given on behalf of the original tenant to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the tenanted premises. In my considered view, the answer to this is in the negative. The legal heirs cannot take advantage of the order dated 26. 07. 1999 not being happily worded since in substance it records the undertaking given on behalf of the tenant. In my considered view, the answer to this is in the negative. The legal heirs cannot take advantage of the order dated 26. 07. 1999 not being happily worded since in substance it records the undertaking given on behalf of the tenant. There is a specific direction in the order passed by the court that the original tenant would hand over the vacant premises latest by 30. 11. 1999 as agreed. It is this statement / undertaking which must be implemented and the legal heirs cannot be permitted to wriggle out of the same. ( 13 ) IN view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered view that there is patent error and erroneous exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal while passing the order dated 2/3/2005 and the order passed by the Rent Controller dated 17/12/2004 was in accordance with law. (16)The petition is accordingly allowed, impugned order dated 02. 03. 2005 set aside and the order of Rent Controller dated 17. 12. 2004 sustained leaving the parties to bear their own costs. CM No. 6412/2005 no further directions are called for in this application in view of disposal of the main petition. Application stands disposed of.