JUDGMENT Honble Mrs. Poonam Srivastava, J.—Heard Sri Neeraj Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.K. Rajvanshi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ashok Srivastava, Advocate appearing for the contesting respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. Counter and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged. The writ petition is listed for admission. As agreed between the counsels for the respective parties, the writ petition is finally decided at the stage of admission itself. 3. The facts giving rise to the dispute is that father of the petitioner, Shiv Narain Chaudhary, instituted an original suit No. 192 of 1980 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Allahabad, for eviction of the contesting respondent on the ground that he is in default in making payment of rent as well as he has caused material alteration to the shop in dispute. The suit was contested by the tenant. The Judge, Small Causes Court, vide its judgment and order dated 28.9.1991 decreed the suit holding that the tenant is in default and on the ground that material alteration has been made in the shop in question, which has diminished its value and utility. Finding was recorded that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable to the shop in question. Against the said decree of the Judge, Small Causes Court, the tenant preferred Civil Revision No. 55 of 1992 before this Court. During pendency of the revision, original landlord Shiv Narain Chaudhary died and was substituted by Surya Narain Chaudhary. The defendant No. 2 Dina Nath, also died and his name was deleted from array of the parties. The civil revision No. 55 of 1992 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 5.5.2006 upholding the judgment and decree of the Judge, Small Causes Court. This Court, while dismissing the revision noticed that the case took 11 years in the trial Court and 14 years in the High Court. 4. However, the tenant preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 14610 of 2006 before the Apex Court, which was also dismissed on 25.8.2006. Learned counsel for the tenant prayed for one years time to vacate the accommodation, which was not disagreed by the counsel for the landlord. An affidavit was filed on 20.9.2006 to the effect that the vacant possession of the shop Nos. 9, 10 and 11 will be handed over on or before 25.8.2007. Learned counsel for the tenant prayed for one years time to vacate the accommodation, which was not disagreed by the counsel for the landlord. An affidavit was filed on 20.9.2006 to the effect that the vacant possession of the shop Nos. 9, 10 and 11 will be handed over on or before 25.8.2007. However, the tenant did not vacate the accommodation in accordance with the undertaking given in pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court and continued to be in occupation. 5. The execution case was instituted prior to decision of the Apex Court and the High Court in the year 1991. An objection under Section 47, CPC was preferred by the tenant. Subsequently, tenant/respondent No. 1 Om Prakash Jaiswal claimed that an agreement has been entered into between the parties subsequent to decision of the Apex Court in respect of the shop Nos. 9, 10 and 11 on payment of Rs. 1,500/- per month for each shop on 20.8.2007 and, therefore, the decree passed in S.C.C. Suit stand waived. The agreement also mentions that the landlord will not press his execution case No. 3 of 1991 and he will withdraw another proceedings initiated before the Prescribed Authority for release under Section 21 (1)(a) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The said case is numbered as P.A. Case No. 167 of 1982. A stay application has also been preferred before the executing Court on 15.9.2007 on account of the fact that tenancy stands atoned by the landlord on the basis of agreement. 6. The landlord has come up in the instant writ petition with a prayer that the entire proceedings of misc. case No. 28 of 2007 Om Prakash Jaiswal v. Surya Narain Chaudhary on the basis of the alleged agreement filed in execution case No. 3 of 1991 are without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed. 7. After hearing learned counsels for the respective parties at length and going through the entire record, the question to be decided in the instant writ petition is whether proceedings in misc. case No. 28 of 2007 be quashed or not. I have perused the agreement, which is disputed by the landlord. But the counsel for the tenant has emphatically argued that since agreement was entered into between the parties, the entire proceedings as well as decree in S.C.C. Suit stand at naught. case No. 28 of 2007 be quashed or not. I have perused the agreement, which is disputed by the landlord. But the counsel for the tenant has emphatically argued that since agreement was entered into between the parties, the entire proceedings as well as decree in S.C.C. Suit stand at naught. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. I have noticed that agreement is an unregistered document alleged to have been executed on 20.8.2007. No doubt, photostat copy is annexed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the said document as it was signed by the landlord, two witnesses as well as tenant and was written out on stamp paper. However, it is admitted that this is not a registered document but it is (undertaking) before expiry of the period given in form of an affidavit dated 20.9.2006 before the Apex Court. I am of the considered view that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable to the present case and once there is a decree for eviction, it cannot be atoned in the manner as claimed by the tenant. If U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is applicable then the landlord can use the accommodation, only after getting it vacated or fresh allotment/release order is passed in favour of the tenant or landlord, as the case may be. It is nowhere provided that the landlord or tenant can enter into an agreement and induct the tenant especially in a building, which is admittedly governed by Act No. 13 of 1972. 9. I am also conscious of the fact that proceedings are being contested by the landlord since a very long time. The landlord has challenged the agreement, which is an unregistered document. No reliance can be placed on the said document. Assuming handwriting in the agreement can be compared and finding if given in favour of the tenant even then he cannot gain any benefit from the said document, which has not been registered and admittedly executed in the year 2007. 10. In view of what has been stated above, I am of the opinion that proceedings in misc. case No. 28 of 2007, Om Prakash Jaiswal v. Surya Narain Chaudhary in execution case No. 3 of 1991 are without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed. 11. The writ petition is allowed. The proceeding in misc. 10. In view of what has been stated above, I am of the opinion that proceedings in misc. case No. 28 of 2007, Om Prakash Jaiswal v. Surya Narain Chaudhary in execution case No. 3 of 1991 are without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed. 11. The writ petition is allowed. The proceeding in misc. case No. 28 of 2007, Om Prakash Jaiswal v. Surya Narain Chaudhary in execution case No. 3 of 1991 are hereby quashed. The executing Court is directed to complete the proceedings expeditiously, preferably, within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. ———