INDERJEET SINGH Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY MORADABADS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE facts relating to the dispute between the parties to this writ petition have been given in detail in the judg ment in Special Appeal No. 181 of 1973. is not necessary .to restate them here. After the State Government allowed the respondent landlord's revision under Section 7-F on 15-11-1972 the latter moved an application before the Prescribed Authority on 24-11-1972 under Section 43 (2) clause (rr) of the new U. P. Act No. XIII of .1972 read with Section 21 of the said Act seeking the evic tion of the tenant. By the order dated 13-12-1972 passed in Civil Misc. Writ No. 7746 of 1972, the Prescribed Authority was directed not to pass final order of eviction during the pendency of the said writ petition. The Writ petition was, however, dismissed on March 5, 1973 and thereafter the Prescribed Autho rity by his order dated 17-5-1973 allowed the application of the Landlord respondent No. 2. The tenant thereafter filed this writ petition against the order dated 17-5-1973 of the Prescribed Authority. The writ petition has been filed during the pendency of Special Ap peal No. 181 of 1973 and the Bench hearing the special Appeal by its order dated 17-8-1973 directed that the writ petition itself should also be heard along with the special appeal.

(2.) THE only point which has been convassed in support of the writ petition against the Prescribed Authority's order dated 17-5-1973 is' that compensation was bound to be paid to the tenant in .terms of the second proviso to clause (b) of sub-section (1) of S. 21 of the new Act. In ground No. 3 of the writ petition the petitioner contended that such compensation was bound to be awarded by the State Government. However, that is an obvious mistake as compensation under Section 21 is awarded by the Prescribed Authority. In fact Mr. Shanti Bhushan ap pearing on behalf of the petitioner contend ed that compensation was bound to have been awarded by the Prescribed Authority.

(3.) FURTHER , no question was raised by the tenant before the prescribed authority about compensation. There is no plea to that effect in his written statement which is annexure II to the writ petition. We are of opinion that if the tenant does not raise the question of compensation, the prescribed authority has no authority and is not bound to award compensation under the proviso in question. The landlord- respondent No. 2 re lied upon the judgment of a learned single Judge of this- Court in Writ Petn. No. 7859 of 1972 = (reported in AIR 1974 All 118). The question was not argued before the learned single Judge as it was taken for granted that when an application is made under S. 43, sub-section (2), clause (rr) then no compensa tion will be payable to the tenant. It is not necessary to go into that controversy as we have held that the proviso itself is not mandatory but directory and further that if a tenant fails to raise the question of compen sation the prescribed authority is not suo motu required to enter into that question.