S. U. KHAN, J. Heard Sri Dharmpal Singh, learned Senior Counsel, along with Sri P. K. Dubey and Sri S. Niranjan, learned Counsel for landlords peti tioners, and Sri Mool Bihari Saxena along with Sri Saurabh Srivastava learned Counsel for tenants-respondents. 2. Property in dispute is a shop situate in Kanpur Nagar, rent of which was Rs. 200/- per month. Landlords-petitioners filed release application against tenants-respondents under section 21 of U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 on the ground of bona fide need in the form of Rent Case No. 42 of 2001, which was allowed ex parte on 23. 3. 2002 by Prescribed Authority/additional Civil Judge, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar. Restoration application was rejected on 16. 8. 2003. Thereafter, execution case was filed, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 11/23 of 2003. Against order allowing the release application, tenants had filed Rent Appeal No. 94 of 2004, which was allowed by Vth A. D. J. , Kanpur Nagar on 24. 3. 2005 ex parte however it appears that the said order was not communicated to the Executing Court. Appellate Court had remanded the matter. Thereafter, release applica tion was dismissed in default on 8. 9. 2005. According to the landlords, as the landlords were not aware of order of remand passed by the Appellate Court, hence they could not appear in the release application. 3. In execution proceedings, landlords obtained possession on 16. 3. 2008 through police. 4. On 18. 3. 2008, tenants filed application for restoration of possession be fore the prescribed authority. 5. Thereafter, landlords filed restoration application before appellate Court and also a restoration application before Trial Court for setting aside the order dated 8. 9. 2005, through which release application was dismissed in de fault. 6. On 2. 4. 2008, prescribed authority passed order for restoration of posses sion against which a writ petition was filed, which was disposed of on 15. 5. 2008 directing that restoration application should be heard on 19. 5. 2008 and order dated 2. 4. 2008 directing restoration of possession shall be kept in abeyance until decision of restoration application. 7. Thereafter, on 14. 8. 2008, the Appellate Court/vth A. D. J. dismissed the petitioners restoration application as barred by time after rejecting the de lay condonation application. The said order dated 14. 8. 5. 2008 and order dated 2. 4. 2008 directing restoration of possession shall be kept in abeyance until decision of restoration application. 7. Thereafter, on 14. 8. 2008, the Appellate Court/vth A. D. J. dismissed the petitioners restoration application as barred by time after rejecting the de lay condonation application. The said order dated 14. 8. 2008 has been chal lenged through this writ petition. It has also been prayed that petitioners- landlords may not be dispossessed from the shop in dispute. 8. On the persuasion of the Court learned Counsel for both the parties af ter repeatedly consulting their clients discussed several modes of compromise. Ultimately, learned Counsel for both the parties after consulting their clients agreed for the settlement of the dispute amicably in the following manner : 1. W. e. f. the date on which possession of the shop in dispute is redelivered to the tenant by the landlord, rent of the shop in dispute would be Rs. 5,000/- per month. No further amount as water tax etc. would be payable over and above Rs. 5,000/- per month. 2. Before taking possession tenants would pay ten months advance rent i. e. , Rs. 50,000/- to the landlord. 3. Tenants-respondents 1 and 2 would pay ten months advance rent as well as future rent after ten months by the 7th of each succeeding month to landlord-petitioners by depositing the same in the joint account of both the landlords-petitioners which has been provided by learned Counsel for the landlords and is reproduced below : Sachin Goenka, Sunil Goenka H. U. F. S/b. A/c No. 5278 Allahabad Bank, City Office Branch, Kanpur Nagar. 4. In spite of the fact that rent has been fixed at more than Rs. 2,000/-per month, U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 would continue to apply on the building in dispute. Supreme Court in Lachoo Mai v. Radhey Shyam, has held that benefit of clause of ex emption from operation of Rent Control Act can be waived by the landlord. 5. Entire admitted unpaid rent up till the date tenant remained in occu pation would be paid by the tenant-respondent to the landlord within one month from taking possession of the shop in dispute at the old rate of Rs. 200/- per month, by depositing the same in the aforesaid bank account. 6. 5. Entire admitted unpaid rent up till the date tenant remained in occu pation would be paid by the tenant-respondent to the landlord within one month from taking possession of the shop in dispute at the old rate of Rs. 200/- per month, by depositing the same in the aforesaid bank account. 6. Possession shall be delivered by the landlord to the tenant within two weeks from the date on which the aforesaid amount of Rs. 50,000/- is deposited in the landlords bank account. 9. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above compro mise. Let the terms of the compromise be complied with strictly. Petition Disposed Of. .