various grounds, including that the same was executed taking benefit of dominating position of the landlord and under duress. All grounds were considered by trial court independently. The trial court while deciding issue No.2, concluded that the plaintiff has executed the compromise out of his free will. Each & every ground of challenge to this compromise deed dated 21.05.1974, was declined. The trial court observed that this is a case, where the plaintiff himself has vacated his shop and permitted the landlord to demolish the shop vide compromise deed dated 21.05.1974 but after near about one month, has instituted the present suit for injunction on 20.06.1974 to stop the demolition and asking for reconstruction, which cannot be treated as bonafides on his part. Moreover, when the shop had already been demolished and plaintiff is out of possession, there is no justification to institute the suit for injunction. The trial court examined the terms of compromise deed dated 21.05.1974 and observed that there is no agreement for restoration of the possession of the shop in question to plaintiff after re-construction of building and moreso the plaintiff has not instituted any suit for restoration of his possession. The trial court noticed that defendant has not disputed the execution of the compromise deed dated 21.05.1974, rather has contended that the agreement between parties, was to the effect that after demolition of the shop in question, if the plaintiff would like to take the re-constructed the shop on lease, the same can be done on the fresh terms as agreed. Thus with such understanding the compromise deed dated 21.05.1974, was executed with all tenants.
