1. DORAB PATELJ.-This petition for leave arises out of an eviction application filed ten years ago in the Court of a Rent Controller in Lahore The respondents are the owner of the demised premises and ten years agcy they had filed an eviction application against the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners for her eviction on the ground that she had committed default in the payment of rent for more than one year. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners challenged the title of tile respondents, therefore, preliminary issues were framed and it took four years to decide these issues. And as the question of title was finally decided in favour of the respondents, the case was fixed forevidence on the question of the alleged default in the payment of rent. By this time, the petitioners had been substituted in the case as the legal heirs of the deceased tenant. And as they did not produce any evidence despite the opportunity given to them by the Rent Controller, and as the written statement did not contain any denial of the express aver--ment in the eviction application about the default in the payment of rent, the Rent Controller ordered the eviction of the petitioners; by his order dated 26-9-1970.
2. The petitioners filed an appeal in the District Court, Lahore, which was allowed by an Additional District Judge on 13-10-1973. We are constrained to observe here that this is one of the strangest orders we have ever come across. Instead of examining the question of default, the learned Additional District Judge held on the basis of some entries in the case diary that the parties had compromised their dispute. It would: appear that the Advocate of the respondents had made a statement on 13-12-1968 that he would not pursue the eviction case if the respondents produced receipts for the payment of rent "on the next date of hearing". According to learned counsel, the petitioners had produced, evidence of the payment of rent but not on the next date. We have to state with regret that there are discrepancies in the paper-book about the date on which these receipts or this evidence about the payment of rent was produced. Be that as it may, the Additional District Judge held that the offer made by the Advocate of the respondents on 13-12-1968 had been accepted and the relevant receipts produced, therefore, the respondents could not back out of the compromise and prosecute their eviction case. He, accordingly, allowed the appeal of the petitioners by his order dated, 13-10-1973.
3. The respondents challenged this order in a second appeal in the Lahore High Court but a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court held that the petitioners had not properly complied with the offer made by the Advocate of the respondents on 13-12-1968, therefore, he allowed the appeal, set aside the District Court's order and remanded the case to the District Court for the decision of the appeal of the petitioners on merits. Hence this petition for leave.
4. Mr. Chauhan submitted that the view of the learned Single Judge was based on a misreading of the compromise arrived at between the parties and that the learned Additional District Judge had by taking a liberal view gave effect to the true intention of the parties. It is unnecessary for us to examine whether the learned Single Judge erred in taking a strict view of what had happened in the Rent Controller's Court on 13-12-1968, because we are satisfied that there was no compromise whatever between the parties. The order of the Additional District Judge was totally erroneous and was only fit to be set aside. Therefore, there is no merit in this petition, which is dismissed.