JUDGMENT : Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J. 1. Heard Sri M.C. Singh, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner and Sri Vonod Sinha, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent No. 3. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for the following relief: "(i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30.3.2012 (Annexure No. 11) and dated 11.11.2013 (Annexure No. 5) passed by Respondent No. 2 and dated 2.11.2017 (Annexure No. 9). (ii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to give effect the impugned order dated 2.11.2017 and 11.11.2013 passed by Respondent No. 1 and 2, respectively." 3. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that undisputedly, the plaintiff-respondent No. 3 is the owner and landlord of a building situate at Mandi Jawaharganj, Jalesar Pargana Jalesar, District Etah. In the said building, the defendant-petitioner occupies a shop as tenant at a monthly rent of Rs. 15.75 from several decades. The plaintiff/landlord filed a release application being as P.A. Case No. 03 of 2009, Kailash Narayan v. Gitam Singh, which was allowed by judgment and decree dated 11.11.2013 passed by the Civil Judge (S.D.)/Prescribed Authority, Etah. Aggrieved with this judgment of the Prescribed Authority, the defendant-petitioner filed a Rent Appeal No. 06 of 2013, Gitam Singh v. Kailash Narayan, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 02.11.2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Etah. Aggrieved with these two judgments, the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been filed. 4. In this writ petition, on 31.01.2018, an order was passed as under: "Heard Sri M.C. Singh, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner/tenant and Sri Vinod Sinha, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent/landlord. Aggrieved with the release of the disputed shop this petition has been filed. The dispute involved in this petition is similar to the dispute involved in Writ-A No. 3672 of 2018, which has been heard today. The disputed house is one and the same. Both the learned counsels for the parties jointly state that the order passed today in Writ-A No. 3672 of 2018, may be made applicable in the present petition also and a joint affidavit shall be filed on 2.2.2018. As prayed, put up on 2.2.2018." 5. The disputed house is one and the same. Both the learned counsels for the parties jointly state that the order passed today in Writ-A No. 3672 of 2018, may be made applicable in the present petition also and a joint affidavit shall be filed on 2.2.2018. As prayed, put up on 2.2.2018." 5. The order dated 31.01.2018 passed in the aforesaid Writ-A No. 3672 of 2018 is reproduced below: "Heard Sri M.C. Singh, learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner/tenant and Sri Vinod Sinha, learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent/landlord. Both the learned counsels for the parties have argued at length. Thereafter, learned counsels for the plaintiff-respondent/landlord on instruction has stated that the plaintiff- respondent/landlord is ready to give a shop of the same size i.e. 8 feet x 12 feet, at a monthly rent of Rs. 1000/-, after reconstructing the house. He, further, states that the shop shall be given on the front portion of the house to the defendant-petitioner within one year from the date of handing over of the shop by the defendant-petitioner to the plaintiff- respondent for reconstruction. The impugned judgment and order may also be modified accordingly. Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner on instruction of the petitioner, who is present in the Court, accepts the offer. Both the learned counsels for the parties, on instructions, jointly state that the parties shall file a joint affidavit by 2.2.2018, incorporating the statement as afore-noted. As prayed, put up on 2.2.2018." 6. Today, a joint affidavit of the defendant-petitioner/tenant and son of the plaintiff- respondent/landlord on behalf of landlord has been filed which is taken on record. The affidavit is reproduced below: "Affidavit of Gitam Singh, aged about 64 years son of Sri Jhamman Singh resident of Village Nagla Godhi Mudai Prahlad Nagar, Ganeshpur Ganeshapur District Etah (Occupation-Medical Practitioner, Religion-Hindu) And Affidavit of Sanjiv Kumar aged about 48 Years (Occupation-Business, Religion-Hindu) S/o Kailash Narayan resident of Mohalla-Pansariyan, Bada Bazar, Jalesar, Tehsil Jalesar District Etah. 1. That the deponent No. 1 is the petitioner, and deponent No. 2 is the son of respondent No. 3 (Kailash Narayan) and doing pairvi of their case in the above noted writ petition and as such they are fully acquainted with the facts deposed to below:- 2. That this joint affidavit is being filed in compliance of the order of this Hon'ble court, dated 31.01.2018. 3. That this joint affidavit is being filed in compliance of the order of this Hon'ble court, dated 31.01.2018. 3. That the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 reached at following agreement/ compromise. (1) The petitioner will hand over the vacant possession of the disputed premises to the respondent No. 3, within 15 days (fifteen days) from today, and after handing over the possession, the respondent no. 3, will give in written in Stamp paper, about handing over the possession to the him. (2) The respondent No. 3, agreed to make new construction after demolition of the old construction within one year from today, and give the petitioner, the possession of newly constructed shop, measuring 8 feet x 12 feet in front portion of the house, at the same place where the disputed shop situated, at monthly rent of Rs. 1000/-. 4. That this joint affidavit be treated as the part of the writ petition and be considered at the time of argument." 7. Learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent No. 3/landlord states that he shall adjust his bona fide need by giving one shop to the defendant-petitioner as stated in the joint affidavit. It has been further agreed between the parties as stated by their learned counsels on instructions that the rent shall be enhanced by 10% after every three years till the tenancy continues. Both the learned counsels for the parties jointly pray that the impugned judgments and decree may be modified in terms of the compromise as mentioned above. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of on the terms of aforementioned compromise between the defendant-petitioner and the plaintiff-respondent/landlord which shall form part of this order and accordingly, the impugned judgments and decree stands modified. 9. In the event, the plaintiff-respondent No. 3/landlord does not give to the defendant- petitioner a shop in vacant position within the stipulated period as stated in paragraph-3 of the compromise/afore-quoted joint affidavit, then the defendant-petitioner shall be entitled to initiate appropriate proceedings against the plaintiff-respondent No. 3 including the proceedings for contempt.