JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla dated 05th June, 2002. 3. The Appellant's father was the tenant of a shop in dispute and the predecessor-in- interest of the respondents Durga Wati was the owner of the said shop. The landlady had filed a suit for eviction on the ground that the shop had become dilapidated and required reconstruction. 4. The Rent Controller vide judgment dated 21st March, 1986 allowed the eviction petition on the basis of a compromise of even date entered into between the parties. According to the said compromise dated 21st March, 1986, it was agreed upon between the parties that the plaintiff-landlady will build a new shop in place of the disputed shop and shall give shop of the same size after rebuilding to the tenant, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure P1 (Colly) to this appeal. The tenant abided by the terms of the compromise and vacated the shop in question but evidently the landlady had not abided her part of the compromise and had not given the shop of the same size to the tenant after rebuilding it. 5. The tenant instituted the execution proceedings which were dismissed on the ground that the original landlady had died. In our opinion, the legal heirs of the original landlady step into the shoes of the landlady and, therefore, proceedings will not abate. Against the order of the Rent Controller, a petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed before the High Court which has been dismissed on the ground that since the building is covered by the Rent Control Act, no eviction could be ordered de hors the provisions of the Rent control Act. 6. We are not in agreement with the view taken by the High Court. In this case, there is a compromise between the parties and the parties have therefore to abide by the terms of the compromise and it was agreed upon between them that one shop of the same size will be given to the tenant after rebuilding. 7. 6. We are not in agreement with the view taken by the High Court. In this case, there is a compromise between the parties and the parties have therefore to abide by the terms of the compromise and it was agreed upon between them that one shop of the same size will be given to the tenant after rebuilding. 7. Hence, we accept this appeal, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court as well as Rent Controller and direct the landlord (legal heirs of the original landlady) to give a shop to the tenant of the same size as per the compromise dated 21st March, 1986. No order as to the costs.