Judgment : This Civil Revision has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order, dated 12. 2010 made in M.P. No. 458 of 2006 in E.P. No. 422 of 2006 in R.C.O.P.No.1438 of 2002 on the file of the XI Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai, dismissing the E.A. No. 457 of 2006. 2. It is seenthat the Rent Control Original Petition in R.C.O.P. No. 1438 of 2002 was filed by deceased, V. Bhagwandass, as landlord, under Section 10 (2) (i) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 as amended by Act 23 of 1963 (herein after referred to as Act), seeking order of eviction against the petitioners firm, the respondent in the R.C.O.P. 3. When the Rent Control Original Petition in R.C.O.P. No. 1438 of 2002 was pending, a joint memo of compromise, dated 22. 2003 was filed by the landlord Bhagwandass and the petitioners firm herein, represented by its Partners, Thakkur Shah and Vittal Das Lallu Shah, in the open Court, signed by both the parties and their respective counsel. It is seen that P.W. 1 and R.W. 1 were examined and Exhibits p-1 and P-2 were also marked. The learned Rent Controller, considering the evidence and the joint memo of compromise and also the arguments advanced by both sides, passed the order and decretal order, dated 22. 2003, in terms of the compromise memo, as agreed by both the parties. 4. As per the joint memo of compromise, the petitioner/tenant had agreed to vacate and hand over the possession of the vacant premises to the respondents/landlords on are before 38. 2006 and accordingly, the learned Rent Controller had passed order and decretal order in the R.C.O.P. No.1438 of 2002. The order and decretal order passed in terms of the compromise memo was not challenged by the petitioner. The petitioner/tenant was also in possession and enjoyment of the premises, as per the compromise decree, but failed to vacate and hand over the premises to the landlords. Hence, the respondents/landlords filed Execution Petition in E.P.No.422 of 2006 before the Executing Court. The petitioner, who had not challenged the decree filed Miscellaneous Petitions, seeking orders to dismiss the Execution Petition and for stay, before the Executing Court. 5. Hence, the respondents/landlords filed Execution Petition in E.P.No.422 of 2006 before the Executing Court. The petitioner, who had not challenged the decree filed Miscellaneous Petitions, seeking orders to dismiss the Execution Petition and for stay, before the Executing Court. 5. The revision petitioners filed miscellaneous petitions in M.P. No.457 of 2006 and M.P.No.458 of 2006 in E.P.No.422 of 2006 under Rules 11 and 12 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1974 read with Section 47 and 151 C.P.C. by a common order, dated 12. 2010 passed in M.P. No.457 of 2006 and M.P. No. 458 of 2006, the learned Rent Controller dismissed both the petitions, wherein the relief sought for by the petitioners before the Court below in M.P.No.458 of 2006 is to set aside and declare that the decree and order granting eviction in the above R.C.O.P. No.1438 of 2003, dated 22. 2003 as void, on the ground of nullity and unexecutable and in M.P. No. 457 of 2006, seeking an order to grant stay of all further Execution Proceedings in the above E.P. No. 422 of 2006 filed by the respondents/petitioners, pursuant to the compromise order of eviction, dated 22. 2003 passed in R.C.O.P No.1438 of 2002 till the disposal of the Execution Petition. 5. It is an admitted fact that the parties to the R.C.O.P. No. 1438 of 2002 had filed joint memo of compromise signed by both the parties and their respective counsel before the Court below on 22. 2003, whereby the second respondent therein Navin Chand Chandulal & Co., represented by its partners, Thakkur Shah and Vittal Das Lallu Shah, who were in occupation of the premises, a shop portion and godown in the ground floor and also residential portion in the first floor had undertook to vacate and hand over the vacant possession on or before 38. 2006. An amount of Rs. 4,020/- paid by the second respondent towards arrears of rent from April 2002 to March 2003 was also acknowledged by V. Bhagwandas, the petitioner therein. Both the parties had agreed that the petitioner therein to withdraw the arrears of rent deposited in R.C.O.P. No.417 of 2002 by moving the appropriate Court for payment out, as per the settlement arrived at The second respondent therein Navin Chand Chandulal & Co., rep. Both the parties had agreed that the petitioner therein to withdraw the arrears of rent deposited in R.C.O.P. No.417 of 2002 by moving the appropriate Court for payment out, as per the settlement arrived at The second respondent therein Navin Chand Chandulal & Co., rep. by its partners, Thakkur Shah and Vittal Das Lallu Shah, undertook not to create any encumbrance by way of subletting or otherwise and also to peacefully vacate and hand over the possession on or before 38. 2006, without driving the petitioner therein to Execution Proceedings and further, the second respondent therein undertook to withdraw C.R.P. No. 1520 of 2002 pending in this Court and the petitioner/landlord therein undertook to withdraw the R.C.O.P. No.1437 of 2002 filed by him for eviction. 6. It is not in dispute that in view of the joint memo of compromise filed by both the parties, order was passed by the Court below, in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. After reaping the benefits, based on the order and decretal order passed, pursuant to the compromise memo, the petitioner/tenant herein continued in possession of the rental premises and did not vacate the premises, as per the order and decretal order passed in the R.C.O.P, but filed the miscellaneous petitions in M.P. No. 457 of 2006 and M.P. No. 458 of 2006, challenging the decree before the Executing Court. 7.Mr. J.R.K. Bhavanandam, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that the petitioner herein Navin Chand Chandulal & CO., rep. by its Partners have caused abuse of process of Court by the filling M.P. No.458 of 2006, seeking an order to set aside and declare the order and decretal order passed, pursuant to the compromise memo filed in R.C.O.P. No.1438 of 2002, dated 22. 2003 as void and became a nullity and unexecutable, after enjoying the entire benefit under the compromise decree, before the executing Court and that the M.P. No. 457 of 2006, filed seeking interim stay is also legally not maintainable. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents/landlords submitted that the vexatious petition filed by the petitioner/tenant is a clear abuse of process of Court. It is an admitted fact that the joint memo of compromise, dated 22. 2003 was filed by both the parties and the order and decretal order were passed on 22. 2003 by the Court below, in terms of the joint memo of compromise. It is an admitted fact that the joint memo of compromise, dated 22. 2003 was filed by both the parties and the order and decretal order were passed on 22. 2003 by the Court below, in terms of the joint memo of compromise. It is not in dispute that in the R.C.O.P, both, P.W.1 and R.W.1 were examined and Exhibits P-1 and P-2 were marked, accordingly, the memo of compromise was marked as Exhibit P-2. Considering the evidence, both oral and documentary and also the joint memo of compromise, learned Rent Controller passed order and decretal order, dated 22. 2003, whereby directed the petitioner/tenant to vacate and hand over the premises on or before 38. 2006, as agreed by the petitioner/tenant in the compromise memo. .9. In the memo of compromise, the petitioner, who was respondent in R.C.O.P. had voluntarily agreed to vacate and hand over the possession of the premises to the respondent/landlord on or before 38. 2006, without driving the respondent/landlord to Execution Proceedings. After the death of Bhagwandass, the original landlord, his legal representatives were brought on record as respondents herein, similarly, the petitioners have added the name of one Jayendra Vittal Das Shah, as one of the partners of Navinchandra Chandulal & CO. It cannot be disputed that the order and decretal order passed by the Court below is based on the compromise memo filed by both the parties, hence, the same is binding on both the parties, until contrary is proved. .10. Mr. M.A. Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relying on the decision, Ferozi Lal Jain v. Man Mal and Another, AIR 1970 SC 794 : (1970) 3 SCC 181 submitted where it was proceeded solely on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties, the Court would not be competent to pass decree and the decree in Execution Proceeding must be held to be a nullity. In the aforesaid decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held in paragraph number 6 as follows: .“6. … It is clear from the record that the Court had proceeded solely on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. That being so there can be hardly any doubt that the Court was not competent to pass the impugned decree. Hence, the decree under execution must be held to be a nullity”. 11. Per contra, Mr. … It is clear from the record that the Court had proceeded solely on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. That being so there can be hardly any doubt that the Court was not competent to pass the impugned decree. Hence, the decree under execution must be held to be a nullity”. 11. Per contra, Mr. J.R.K. Bhavanandam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, since the impugned order was passed, considering the merits of the case, apart from the compromise memo filed by both the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, in support of his contention, cited the following decisions: 1. Devarajan and Others v. Lingaiyan, 1996 MLJ 370 2. Kemi Kwaja Mohideen v. Susan Galife, (1995) 2 MLJ 20 : 1995-1-LW 207 3. SulemanNoormohamed v. Umarbhai Janubai, AIR 1978 SC 952 : (1978) 2 SCC 179 4. Muthukrishnammal v. Anandhalakshmi (1999) 1 MLJ 206 .12. This Court in Muthukrishnammal v. Anandhalakshmi (supra), has held as follows: .“11. …. Merely because the order does not say that tenant committed wilful default and therefore liable to be evicted, it does not follow that Rent Controller has not applied its mind. The Court can take into consideration the pleadings of the parties and on that basis come to the conclusion, whether the Rent Controller had, applied his mind while passing the order. The time at which compromise was entered is also a relevant factor. The Law presumes that an order passed by Rent Controller even on compromise is made after application of mind though not expressly stated in the order.” .13. In Devarajan and Others v. Lingaiyan (supra), this Court has held as follows: .“4...While ordering the petitions the Rent controller had taken into consideration the memo filed by the petitioners. The Rent Controller has ordered eviction on the basis of the memo. When the authority had acted upon the memo filed by the petitioners, then it will amount to implead application of mind of the Rent Controller in accepting the memo….” .14. The Rent Controller has ordered eviction on the basis of the memo. When the authority had acted upon the memo filed by the petitioners, then it will amount to implead application of mind of the Rent Controller in accepting the memo….” .14. This Court in Kemi Kwaja Mohideen v. Susan Galife (supra), has held as follows: .“The tenant in this case, having agreed to three years time to vacate the premises, has not filed the present execution application raising the ground of nullity of the order of eviction passed on the basis of consent. It is regrettable that though the tenant had got about three years time to vacate the premises in question from the date of the compromise decree, she was ill advised to fight the litigation further and thus cause delay in the vacating of the premises in question by few more years.” I have no doubt in my mind that on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the compromise decree of eviction passed, was clearly valid and executable and therefore, I have no hesitation to uphold the decision of the Rent Controller ordering eviction on the basis of the compromise decree.” .15. In the decision, in Suleman Noormohamed v. Umarbhai Janubai (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows: .“8. ..The facts clearly show that he had incurred the liability to be evicted under the said provisions of law and the compromise decree was passed on the tenant’s impliedly admitting such liability. If a decree for possession would have been passed in invitum, the tenant would not have got three years’ time to vacate the premises. He, therefore, agreed to suffer a decree by consent and gained three years’ time under it. But the unavoidable uncertainties of litigation and the delay in disposal of cases at all stages have enabled him to gain a period of about 11 years more by now. In our judgment the decree under execution is not a nullity and has got to be executed by the Execution Court without any further loss of time, as quickly as possible”. 16. I am of the considered view that the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court cited by Mr. J.R.K. Bhavanandam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. 16. I am of the considered view that the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court cited by Mr. J.R.K. Bhavanandam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the instant case, it has been established that the order and decretal order relating to the R.C.O.P have not been passed, solely on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties. It is seen that P.W.1 and R.W.1 were examined, Exhibits P-1 and P-2 were also marked and that the learned Rent Controller has passed only a proper and considered order in the R.C.O.P, as per law. .17. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner/tenant, a partnership firm had filed a memo of compromise, dated 22. 2003 along with the respondent/landlord before the Court below signed by both the parties and their respective counsel, even the seal of the petitioner/tenant firm had been affixed on the joint memo of compromise. After hearing both sides and duly considering the oral and documentary evidence and also the joint memo of compromise filed by both the parties, the order and decretal order were passed in the R.C.O.P., by the learned Rent Controller on 22. 2003, whereby the petitioner herein as tenant, got 3 years 6 months time to vacate and hand over the possession of the rented premises, which is not in dispute. On behalf of the petitioner herein, partner of the petitioner firm specifically consented that the vacant possession of the rented premises would be handed over to the respondent/landlord on or before 38. 2006, without driving the landlord to Execution proceeding. 18. Having voluntarily agreed for the terms and conditions stipulated in the joint memo of compromise and after having reaped the benefit of more than 31/2 years in possession and enjoyment of the premises, the petitioner/tenant herein has taken totally an unjust and unreasonable defence, by filing the petition in M.P. No. 458 of 2006 before the Executing Court, seeking an order to set aside the compromise decree and to declare the same as void and unexecutable, on the ground of nullity and also interim stay in M.P. No. 457 of 2006. Having agreed for the compromise decree and availed the entire benefit under the compromise decree, a party to the compromise decree cannot challenge the same. Having agreed for the compromise decree and availed the entire benefit under the compromise decree, a party to the compromise decree cannot challenge the same. It is not open to the petitioner herein to challenge the compromise decree, after having enjoyed the benefit for the period of 3 years and 6 months. Similarly, the petitioner herein has challenged the compromise decree to which he was a party and that too before the Executing Court. Hence, I could find no legal ground in this revision in favour of the petitioner/tenant. 19. In the light of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court referred to above, on the facts and circumstances of the Revision, I am of the considered view that the Execution Applications filed by the petitioner/tenant would be construed only a clear abuse of process of Court. Only on the terms of the compromise decree, dated 22. 2003, the petitioner firm had been permitted to be in possession and enjoyment of the premises for a period of more than 3 years and 6 months. It is also made clear that only on considering the aforesaid benefit, the petitioner firm had agreed to vacate and hand over the possession on or before 38. 2006 to the landlord. Since the petitioner was fully satisfied for the said terms, in the joint memo, the petitioner herein has specifically assured that the petitioner would not drive the respondent/landlord to Execution Proceeding. However, it is unfortunate that the petitioner has not vacated and handed before 38. 2006, as promised in writing before the Court below, but able to protract till the date of passing of this order, in the year 2010, for more than 7 years after the compromise decree, on the unjust and unreasonable grounds. It is a settled proposition of law that a partner is an agent of the firm as well as other partners in the firm, especially in legal proceedings, hence, the compromise decree, dated 22. 2003 became final and binding on the petitioner firm and all its partners. 20. It is a settled proposition of law that a partner is an agent of the firm as well as other partners in the firm, especially in legal proceedings, hence, the compromise decree, dated 22. 2003 became final and binding on the petitioner firm and all its partners. 20. As held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the decision Suleman Noormohamed v. Umarbhai Janubai (supra), but for the order and decretal order passed in terms of the compromise memo, the petitioners could not have been in possession and enjoyment of the premises for more than 31/2 years and further, the petitioner firm managed to continue till date, for another three more years. The attitude of the petitioners/tenants is totally unjust, unreasonable and against law, which cannot be justified. .21. it is a fact that the Court below has passed the impugned order and decretal order, considering the merits of the case, based on the evidence of P.W.1, R.W.1 and the documents marked as Exhibits P-1 and P-2 and not merely on the joint memo of compromise field by the parties and further, the same has not been challenged, but only acted upon by the parties. The petitioner herein has reaped the entire benefits, as per the order and decretal order, passed, pursuant to the joint memo of compromise. Therefore, the petitioner has no right or justification in challenging the aforesaid order and decretal order passed by the learned Rent Controller, after reaping the entire benefits under the decretal order. 22. Having gone through the impugned order, other material papers and the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel, I could find no error or material irregularity in the impugned orders passed by the Court below, so as to warrant any interference of this Court and accordingly, this civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed with costs, as no merits. 23. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed with costs as no merits. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Petition dismissed.