Sudhir Agarwal,J. Writ petition has been restored to its original number vide order of date passed on restoration application. As requested by learned counsel for the petitioner, the same is taken up for hearing and is being disposed of finally. 2. Heard Sri T.B. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 3. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.12.2005 passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jaunpur accepting plaintiff-respondent no. 1's Application No. 177-C seeking amendment in release application. 4. The application under Section 21(1)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1972") was filed by Sri Jagdish Prasad and his mother, Smt. Ramdei Devi jointly seeking release of shop in dispute on the ground that it is required for personal need of applicant No. 2, who wants to start business therein. The said application was allowed by Prescribed Authority vide order dated 04.04.1987, whereagainst petitioner-tenant's preferred Rent Control Appeal No. 03 of 1987. During pendency of appeal, Smt. Ramdei Devi died. Moreover, petitioner and respondent no. 1, Sri Jagdish Prasad, one of the party in release application, claimed that they have entered into a compromise. The Appellate Court vide judgment dated 12.09.2005 taking into account the subsequent events, i.e., death of Smt. Ramdei Devi, mother of respondent no. 1 and applicant no. 1 in release application, as also the alleged compromise between petitioner-tenant and Sri Jagdish Prasad, respondent no. 1, allowed appeal and set aside Prescribed Authority's order dated 04.04.1987 and remanded the matter to Prescribed Authority to consider validity of compromise as alleged by parties as also the effect of subsequent events, i.e., death of Smt. Ramdei Devi, in whose name application was filed, and, after her death, her daughters, Smt. Nirmala Devi and Smt. Vimla Devi were impleaded as applicants no. 2/1 and 2/2. It appears that after remand an amendment application was filed by applicant no. 1, Sri Jagdish Prasad setting up the case of his personal need in the ship in dispute and that application has been allowed by Prescribed Authority. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it was not open to Prescribed Authority to permit any new ground in the application and allow amendment application when Sri Jagdish Prasad has already made a compromise with petitioner. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it was not open to Prescribed Authority to permit any new ground in the application and allow amendment application when Sri Jagdish Prasad has already made a compromise with petitioner. 6. So far as alleged compromise is concerned it has not been verified by respondent no. 1 and he having already moved an application for amendment seeking release of shop in dispute for his personal need it is evident that he has not adhered to the alleged compromise, therefore, question of any legal consequences of compromise does not arise. 7. Moreover, Since Sri Jagdish Prasad was not the only applicant, therefore, application by itself could not have been decided on alleged compromise. The Appellate Court in its judgment dated 12.09.2005 has not restricted the scope of adjudication of Prescribed Authority in any manner and, therefore, I do not find any legal or otherwise infirmity in the impugned order passed by Prescribed Authority. 8. The writ petition lacks merit. Dismissed. 9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. ______________