MOOKHERJEE, J. ( 1 ) THESE are two appeals arising out of the requisition of premises No. P-17, Mission Row Extension, Calcutta (1st, 2nd and 3rd floors), under the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provision) Act, 1947. The dispute was with regard to the monthly compensation payable for the said requisition. As there was no agreement between the parties on the point, there was a reference under Section 11 (1) (b) of the above Act. In this reference, an award was made by the Arbitrator and both parties being dissatisfied with the same, have filed the instant appeals. The first appeal (F. A. No. 97 of 1957) is by the State of West Bengal, the other appeal (F. A. No. 177 of 1957) is by the claimants M/s. a. C. Mohammad. The prohibitory order under Section 3 (3) of the above Act was issued on February 25, 1949. It was actually served on March 5, 1949. The prohibitory order was in regard to the entire premises, P-17, Mission Row Extension, except the ground floor. The actual requisition was by the order, dated June 7, 1949, and it was limited to 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors. Thereafter, from time to time the date of delivery of possession was extended and, eventually, possession was taken on August 30, 1949. On September 7, 1950, the requisitioned property appears to have been derequisitioned, but the prohibitory order was formally withdrawn on December 7, 1950. On November 20, 1952, there was an offer from the Government of monthly compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,847. 50 P. The claimant was not inclined to accept the same and he made a claim of monthly compensation at the rate of Rs. 6,075 per month for the above requisitioned property. In this claim petition, however, there were claims made also under other heads. 3,847. 50 P. The claimant was not inclined to accept the same and he made a claim of monthly compensation at the rate of Rs. 6,075 per month for the above requisitioned property. In this claim petition, however, there were claims made also under other heads. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY, the period may be divided into four parts: (i) from February 25, 1949, the date of issue of the prohibitory order to the date, preceding actual requisition or requisition order, namely June 6, 1949; (ii) from June 7, 1949, the date of actual requisition order, to August 29, 1949, the date preceding the taking of possession; (iii) August 30, 1949 to September 7, 1950, the date of derequisition or redelivery of possession; (iv) September 8, 1950 to December 1, 1950, the last date being the date, when the prohibitory order was formally withdrawn. The claimant claims compensation for the entire period from February 25, 1949 to December 1, 1950. He also claims compensation not only for three floors, actually requisitioned, namely, 1st, 2nd and 3rd but also for the other floors excepting the ground floor, namely, the 4th, 5th and 6th floors, as the prohibitory order issued earlier prevented him from making full use of the same. ( 3 ) THE learned Arbitrator has held that the had no jurisdiction to go into any other question except the monthly compensation for the requisitioned property, namely, the 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors of the above premises, as, by the terms of his appointments any other claim would be outside the reference before him. The learned Arbitrator has, accordingly, rejected the claimant's contention with regard to the other floors except the three floors, 1st, 2nd and 3rd of the requisitioned premises, P-17, Mission Row Extension. He has further held that, with regard to the period, the claimant was entitled to compensation only from the date of taking of possession, namely August 30, 1949, to the date of actual derequisition, when possession written statement redelivered, namely September 7, 1950, and he has rejected the claimant's claim with regard to the earlier period from February 25, 1949 upto August 29, and also for the later period, from September 8, 1950 to December 1, 1950. The learned Arbitrator, however, has accepted the claimant's case with regard to the quantum of compensation and he has fixed the same at Rs. The learned Arbitrator, however, has accepted the claimant's case with regard to the quantum of compensation and he has fixed the same at Rs. 6,075 per month as claimed by the claimant in answer to the Government's offer of Rs. 3,847. 50 P. which was supported before him on behalf of the Government. ( 4 ) IN the State's appeal, we are mainly concerned with this quantum of compensation as, according to the State, the Arbitrator's award on this point is on the excess side in favour of the claimant. ( 5 ) THE claimant's appeal, on the other hand, namely F. A. No. 177 of 1957, relates to this other questions before the Arbitrator, namely, his refusal to go into any of the other claims, that is, relating to the other floors and also his refusal to award any compensation except for the period August 30, 1949 to September 7, 1950. ( 6 ) THE appeals have been argued before us at length on both sides and all relevant materials on record have been placed before us with the utmost scrutiny. ( 7 ) IT is necessary, at this stage, to set out the different documents, on which the decision of these appeals will depend. ( 8 ) IN the first place, the relevant order of notification appointing the Arbitrator, which is to be found at page 18 of part I of the paper-book in F. A. No. 97 of 1957 reads as follows: government of West Bengal Land and Land Revenue department requisition notification no. 18842-Requisition dated Calcutta, the 26th september, 1950 whereas the premises specified in the schedule below are requisitioned under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947. And whereas no agreement can be reached in respect of the amount of the monthly rent compensation payable on account of such requisition of the said premises. Now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the said Act, the Governor is pleased to appoint Shri N. C. Chakravarti, Additional District and Sessions Judge, 24-Parganas, as an Arbitrator for the determination of the amount of such compensation. Now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the said Act, the Governor is pleased to appoint Shri N. C. Chakravarti, Additional District and Sessions Judge, 24-Parganas, as an Arbitrator for the determination of the amount of such compensation. THE SCHEDULE premises No. P-17, Mission m/s. A. C. Mohamad, row Extension (1st, 2nd and 'a. C. House' 3rd floors), Calcutta p-16, Bentinck Street, calcutta (Owners)assistant Secretary to the Government of s. D. 10. 10. West Bengal by order of the Governor sd/- H. Mookerjee ( 9 ) THE claims of the claimant under the different heads are to be found at pages 2 to 3 of the said paper-book. It deals firstly with the quantum and the period and also the loss suffered by the claimant by the requisition under other heads under several categories. This was later on supplemented by their petition, which is found at pages 3 to 7 of the same paper-book and the period of claim was extended by including therein the period from September 8, 1950 to December 1, 1950, on which last date the prohibitory order was formally withdrawn. ( 10 ) IN view of the terms of appointment of the Arbitrator, which we have set out above, it is clear that his view that he was precluded from going into any question other than the question of monthly compensation for the property, actually requisitioned, namely, 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors of premises No. P-17, Mission Row Extension, must be upheld. For his other claims, if any, under the law, the claimant must seek his remedy elsewhere and, in the instant proceeding, which is of a limited character and arises on a reference, strictly limited by the terms thereof, the claimant will not be entitled to have any relief in respect of the same. This part of the award of the learned Arbitrator, therefore, will have to be upheld and, to that extent, the claimant's appeal F. A. No. 177 of 1957 will have to be dismissed. ( 11 ) WITH regard to the period, however, the claimant is entitled to succeed in part. It is true that the prohibitory order was actually issued on February 23, 1949. But the prohibitory order, which is printed at pages 63 to 64 at pt. ( 11 ) WITH regard to the period, however, the claimant is entitled to succeed in part. It is true that the prohibitory order was actually issued on February 23, 1949. But the prohibitory order, which is printed at pages 63 to 64 at pt. II of the above paper-book, is in these terms: government of West Bengal land Revenue Department requisition Branch no. 130/49 calcutta, the 25th February, 1949 order whereas it is proposed to requisition the premises described in the schedule below for a public purpose under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 (West Bengal Act V of 1947 ). Now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the said Act, the Provincial Government is pleased to direct that M/s. , A. C. Mohammad and Co. , P-16, Mission Row Extension, Calcutta, shall not, without the permission of the Provincial Government in any way dispose of, or structurally alter, the premises in any manner until further orders. Description of premises the SCHEDULE p-17, Mission Row Extension, Calcutta (Except ground floor)by order of the Governor sd/- R. N. Bhattacharjee 25. 2. 49 received No. 1009/49 dated : 5th March, 1949. Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (On the back)p. T. O. No. Copy forwarded to M/s. A. C. Mohammad and Co. , P-16, Mission Row Extension, Calcutta, landlord of the premises referred to in the order prepage. (The Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta)illegible the 4. 3. 49 first Land Acquisition Collector calcutta ( 12 ) IT definitely left an option to the claimant to do the things prohibited with the permission of the Provincial Government. It is true that there were some attempts to have the requisition withdrawn, but there was no actual prayer for permission to do anything which was prohibited under the said o. In the circumstances, the prohibitory order in question cannot be held to absolutely debar the claimant from undertaking the things prohibited merely because of the issue or service of the said prohibitory order. In this view, the claimant will not be entitled to have any relief in respect of the period, February 25, 1949 upto June 6, 1949. The position, however, becomes materially different from June 7, 1949, on which date the actual requisition order was issued. In this view, the claimant will not be entitled to have any relief in respect of the period, February 25, 1949 upto June 6, 1949. The position, however, becomes materially different from June 7, 1949, on which date the actual requisition order was issued. This order is to be found at page 65 of pt. II of the above paper-book and it reads as follows: government of West Bengal land and Land Revenue Department requisition Branch no. 130/49 calcutta, 7th June, 1949 (?)requisition of premises under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947. ORDER whereas in the opinion of the Provincial Government the premises described in the schedule below are need/are likely to need for a public purpose; now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the West Bengal Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947 (West Bengal Act V of 1947) the Provincial Government is pleased hereby to requisition the premises described in the schedule below and under sub-section (4) of the Section the Governor is further pleased to direct the First Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta, to secure possession of and control over the said premises and to take such other action as is necessary in connection with the requisitioning in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. (On the back)the SCHEDULE description of Premises p-17, Mission Row Extension, Calcutta 1st, 2nd and 3rd floor by order of the Governor sd/- R. N. Bhattacharjee assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal 7. 6. 49 (Received No. 2615 dated 10th June, 1949) ( 13 ) IT is supplemented by a further direction at the back of the actual requisition order which is to be found at page 66. As a combined effect of the two, it is clear that the claimant was prevented from making any effective use of the property, mentioned in the schedule, 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors of P-17, Mission Row Extension, Calcutta, with effect from the said date, namely, June 7, 1949. As a combined effect of the two, it is clear that the claimant was prevented from making any effective use of the property, mentioned in the schedule, 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors of P-17, Mission Row Extension, Calcutta, with effect from the said date, namely, June 7, 1949. It is true that actual possession was taken, after extension from time to time of the date of delivery of possession, on August 30, 1949; but, it is clear also that, during the period June 7, 1949 to August 30, 1949, the claimant could not have made any effective use of the requisitioned property, namely, 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors of the above premises. In this view, we differ from the learned Arbitrator and hold that the claimant would be entitled to the monthly compensation for this period too, namely, from June 7, 1949 to August 29, 1949, and the Arbitrator's award will be modified or enhanced accordingly and, to that extent, the claimant's F. A. No. 177 of 1957 will succeed. With regard to the other period, however, namely, from September 8, 1950 to December 1, 1950, we are of the opinion that the learned Arbitrator took the right view, as, although the prohibitory order was not formally withdrawn until December 1, 1950, the order, derequisitioning the premises, which is at pages 68 to 69 of the above paper-book, pt. II, clearly indicated that the requisition was terminated and the possession of the property was redelivered to the claimant. Whether, in these circumstances, the prohibitory order was formally withdrawn or not, is a matter of little consequence and, accordingly, for this period the claimant will not be entitled to any relief. ( 14 ) THE claimant's appeal, therefore, on the above findings, will be allowed in part, namely, to the extent that he will be entitled to the monthly compensation for the requisitioned property, namely, 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors of premises No. P-17, Mission Row Extension, not only for the period August 30, 1949 to September 7, 1950, as determined or found by the learned arbitrator, but also for the additional period June 7, 1949 to August 29, 1949, or, in other words, he will be entitled to monthly compensation from June 7, 1949 to September 7, 1950. ( 15 ) WITH regard to the State's appeal, F. A. No. 97 of 1957, two points really arise for consideration, one is with regard to the quantum, the other is of a very minor nature, namely, that, according to the State, the tenant obtained an order of temporary injunction in respect of a part of the period covered by the period of requisition or possession and, according to the State, the claimant should not be given compensation for this injunction period. The learned Arbitrator has rightly pointed out that this injunction was obtained after delivery of possession and, accordingly, the said injunction which was virtually against taking of possession was infractuous and no notice need be taken of the same and no relief can be granted to the State and no relief can be refused to the claimant on the basis of the said injunction. This part of the State's argument must, accordingly, be rejected as was done by the learned Arbitrator. ( 16 ) WITH regard to the quantum of compensation, the learned Arbitrator has, in our opinion, come to the correct assessment on the materials before him. The comparable premises has been properly selected and the differences between the requisitioned property and the said comparable premises, mentioned in his award, namely, P-13, Mission Row Extension, have been rightly pointed out and stressed by the learned Arbitrator. In the light of the oral evidence, on the point and not excluding the evidence, given by the Government expert, we are of the view that the figure Rs. 6,075, assessed by the learned Arbitrator, is a just assessment of the monthly compensation in respect of the requisitioned property. ( 17 ) WE would, accordingly, in the above view, dismiss the State's appeal, namely, F. A. No. 97 of 1957, and allow the claimant's appeal namely, F. A. No. 177 of 1957 in part, as indicated hereinbefore, that is, by increasing or enlarging the period of compensation from August 30, 1949 to September 7, 1950 to June 7, 1949 to September 7, 1950, and the award of the learned Arbitrator would be modified and enhanced accordingly. The claimant will also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount from the date of the learned Arbitrator's award until payment in addition to the interest awarded by the learned Arbitrator. The claimant will also be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount from the date of the learned Arbitrator's award until payment in addition to the interest awarded by the learned Arbitrator. We further direct that the parties will bear their own costs in this Court. Gupta J. : I agree. Appeal dismissed.