Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. - 1. This writ petition is directed against the judgement and order dated 8. 10. 2004 passed by the Special Judge (E. C. ) Act/ Judge Small Causes Banda in SCC Revision no. 87 of 2001 confirming the judgement and decree dated 12. 9. 2001 passed by the Civil Judge (SD), Banda in Case No. 09 of 1990 whereby the suit of the plaintiff respondent was decreed. 2. The plaintiff respondent is the landlord of the premises in dispute. A suit, being JSCC suit no. 23 of 1985, for arrears of rent and ejectment was filed by the plaintiff landlord against the father of the petitioner wherein a compromise was entered into between the plaintiff-respondent and the petitioner's father (hereinafter referred to as "tenant") on 18. 12. 1987 wherein the father of the petitioner admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant and it was agreed upon that the petitioner shall pay the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 10/- per month to the plaintiff-respondent and the plaintiff-respondent will forego the relief of ejectment and consequently a decree to that effect was passed by the court below on 18. 12. 1987 and the suit of the landlord respondent for arrears of rent and ejectment stood decided in terms of the said compromise deed. 3. Thereafter when the compromise decree dated 18. 12. 87 was not complied with and further no rent was paid for the period subsequent to the period of the passing of the decree to the plaintiff-respondent, SCC Suit No. 09 of 1990 on 13. 9. 90 after the service of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was filed against the tenant Chotey Khan (father of the petitioner) interalia for arrears of rent and ejectment alleging that the compromise decree was disobeyed by Chotey Khan and no rent whatsoever was paid by him. 4. The trial court, after considering the materials available on the record and hearing the respective parties, decreed the suit vide judgement and decree dated 12. 9. 2001 for arrears of rent and ejectment . 5. Feeling aggrieved by above order, the petitioners filed a revision, being SCC revision no. 87 of 2001 before the District Judge which was dismissed by judgment and order dated 8. 10. 2004 . Hence, the present writ petition. 6. 9. 2001 for arrears of rent and ejectment . 5. Feeling aggrieved by above order, the petitioners filed a revision, being SCC revision no. 87 of 2001 before the District Judge which was dismissed by judgment and order dated 8. 10. 2004 . Hence, the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that there is no landlord and tenant relationship between the parties. It was further contended that no legal notice under section 106 of Transfer of Property Act was received by the petitioner. It was further submitted that the compromise deed, on the basis of which, the decree dated 18. 12. 1987 was passed was a manufactured piece of document and at no point of time any compromise was entered into between the father of the petitioner No. 1 and the plaintiff respondent. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent submitted that the compromise deed was a valid one and the compromise decree was passed in pursuance thereof according to law and no fraud was ever committed by the plaintiff respondent and the said decree has not been quashed by any competent court of law and as such the same has attained finality and was bending on the tenant. He further submitted that since the terms and conditions of the said compromise deed was not complied with by the petitioner and further no rent was paid by petitioner subsequent to the passing of the compromise decree, the plaintiff-respondent was compelled to file the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment after the service of notice which was rightly allowed by the trial court. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. A bare perusal of the record would clearly show that the Suit No. 23 of 1985 was filed by the plaintiff respondent against father of the petitioner Chhotey Khan for arrears of rent and ejectment and a compromise was entered into between Chotey Khan (father of the petitioner No. 1) and the plaintiff-respondent by which the father of the petitioner No. 1 undertook to pay arrears of rent @ Rs. 10/- per month to the plaintiff-respondent and in lieu of that the plaintiff had foregone his relief for ejectment, therefore, the petitioners, who are his heirs and legal representatives, were liable to pay the arrears of rent at the said rate. 10/- per month to the plaintiff-respondent and in lieu of that the plaintiff had foregone his relief for ejectment, therefore, the petitioners, who are his heirs and legal representatives, were liable to pay the arrears of rent at the said rate. The record further reveals that the suit for arrears of rent and ejectment stood decided by the trial court on 18. 12. 1987 in terms of the compromise entered into between Chotey Khan and the plaintiff-respondent. The record further reveals that subsequently a suit, being suit no. 405 of 1991 was filed by the father of the petitioners for cancellation of the compromise decree, however, he died on 28. 8. 1998 during the pendency of the trial. Since his legal heirs and representatives were not substituted, the said suit No. 405/ 1991 stood abated vide order dated 4. 1. 1999. Thereafter the petitioners filed another suit, being suit no. 111 of 1999 for cancellation of the said decree which too was dismissed for want of prosecution. 10. Once the suit filed by the father of the petitioner was dismissed as abated, the second suit by the petitioners for the same relief was not maintainable. The said compromise decree has not yet been set aside by any court of law, therefore, the decree passed by the trial court will remain operative and binding upon the parties. In this view of the matter, it follows that now the petitioners can not deny the landlord -tenant relationship between the parties in view of the compromise decree dated passed on 18. 12. 1987 in terms of the compromise deed wherein the father of the plaintiff had agreed to pay Rs. 10/- per month as rent and admitted the relationship of landlord and tenant. The house in question is alleged to have been purchased by the plaintiff respondent vide registered sale deed dated 23. 11. 1964 from Akhtar Hussain alias Aladeen and the same was never challenged by the petitioners. In view of the above, the court below has not erred in holding that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and the petitioners committed default in payment of rent. The payment of water tax and house tax, the local body does not confer any right or title upon the petitioners . In view of the above, the court below has not erred in holding that relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and the petitioners committed default in payment of rent. The payment of water tax and house tax, the local body does not confer any right or title upon the petitioners . So far as the point regarding non service of legal notice is concerned, the court below has categorically recorded a finding of fact that a notice was served and replied by the petitioners and this fact was never rebutted by them before the court below. 11. The courts below, after meticulously examining the entire materials on record, have given a cogent, convincing and satisfactory reasons while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in his favour. Since the findings recorded by the courts below are neither perverse nor based on any extraneous consideration or irrelevant material, this Court, while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can not substitute its opinion for the opinion of the courts below unless it is found that the conclusion drawn by the courts below is manifestly illegal and perverse. The courts below have recorded a categorical finding that the petitioners have committed default in payment of the rent. 12. In view of what has been discussed, herein above, I do not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned orders which may warrant any interference by this Court. 13. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed .