JUDGMENT M.P. Saxena, J. - This is a tenant's writ petition which has arisen out of proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Act XIII of 1972. 2. In brief the facts are that Mohammad Yaqub opposite party No. 3 is the landlord of shop No. 14/1048/1 situate in Mohalla Lohans Saria, Saharanpur. Abdul Hameed, petitioner, is in possession of it as a tenant. The opposite party No. 3 moved an application under Section 21 of the Act for release of the shop on the ground of bonafide need. He gave out that he is petty watch repairer and is working at the shop of his brother who is himself a tenant of one Hafiz Nazir Ahmed. This Hafiz Nazir Ahmed is threatening to evict his brother on the ground that he had sublet it to him. He also alleged that his family consists of six members including three daughters and one son who are school-going. He is in stringent financial difficulties. While the tenant is a rich man of the locality and has put up his brother Mohammad Ramzan for dealing in aluminum utensils in this shop. Abdul Hameed has got other shops also in his possession and no hardship will be caused to him if this shop is released in his favour as he wants to start his own business in it. 3. Abdul Hameed contested that application, inter alia, on the grounds that the landlord had no bonafide need that a number of other persons were owners of the building and release application by one of them was not maintainable, that he was in possession of it since 1928 and could not be evicted. He admitted that he had three other shops but gave out that they were not available to him. After going through the material on the record the Prescribed Authority held that the landlord had bonafide need for the shop, and greater hardship would be caused to him if his application was allowed. Accordingly the release application was allowed but the following conditions were attached : (1) The tenant will vacate the shop within one month i.e. by 14.11.1976 and deliver possession of the same to the landlord. (2) If the tenant vacated as aforesaid he will be entitled to two years rent as compensation but if he failed to do so he will get nothing. (2) If the tenant vacated as aforesaid he will be entitled to two years rent as compensation but if he failed to do so he will get nothing. (3) The landlord will deposit two years' rent within one and a half months, i.e. by 30th of November, 1976 so that it may be paid to the opposite party if he vacated the shop as aforesaid. (4) The landlord need not deposit any amount if the tenant failed to vacate the shop. The tenant went up in appeal under Section 22 of the Act and the learned District Judge, Saharanpur after considering the entire matter rejected it. Hence this writ petition. 5. The landlord opposite party No. 3 had applied for release of the shop on the ground of his bonafide need. The Prescribed authority and the learned District Judge arrived at the conclusion that the landlord had bonafide need for it. They also compared the relative hardships of the two and held that greater hardships will be caused to the landlord by rejection of the application than will be caused to the tenant if the application was allowed. These findings were based on proper appraisement of the evidence and cannot be questioned in writ jurisdiction. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and confirmed by the learned District Judge was beyond jurisdiction inasmuch as the Prescribed Authority was no doubt competent to award compensation but he had no jurisdiction to impose the conditions reduced above. It is also urged that the said conditions in fact amounted to penalty which could not be done in exercise of the authority, if any. It may be stated at the very outset that this plea was not raised before the District Judge and cannot be raised for the first time in writ jurisdiction Miren Kumar Das v. District Judge, Pilibhit, AIR 1977 Allahabad 47. 7. Even on merit the contention has no force. It may be stated at the very outset that this plea was not raised before the District Judge and cannot be raised for the first time in writ jurisdiction Miren Kumar Das v. District Judge, Pilibhit, AIR 1977 Allahabad 47. 7. Even on merit the contention has no force. Second Proviso to Section 21 reads : "Provided further that if any application under clause, (a) is made in respect of - (a) Any building let out exclusively for non-residential purposes, the Prescribed Authority while making the order of eviction after considering all relevant facts of the case, award against the landlord to the tenant (an amount no exceeding two years' rent) as compensation and may, subject to rules, impose such conditions as he thinks fit." The said proviso clearly authorise the Prescribed Authority not only to award compensation but also to impose such other conditions as he thinks fit. The words "subject to rules" do not restrict this right. They simply mean that if any rules have been framed in this connection they shall be kept in mind while imposing conditions. In the rules no guide lines have obviously been provided for it. It cannot be said that in the absence of rules the Prescribed Authority cannot impose any condition. Rule 16(2)(c) has no relevance to the facts of this case. It lays down that where the landlord has available with him other accommodation which is not suitable for his own proposed business but may serve the purpose of the tenant. The landlord shall let out that accommodation to the tenant at a fair rent to be fixed by the Prescribed Authority. The question of alternative accommodation was not at all involved. I am therefore, in judgment that the Prescribed Authority was competent to impose such conditions as he thought fit. There is nothing to warrant that the aforesaid conditions amount to penalty. According to the provisions of the Act itself the release order becomes effective thirty days after the order. Therefore, giving of one month's time to the tenant to vacate the shop was in conformity with this provision. He was also competent to award compensation and that part of the order also cannot be assailed on any ground. At stated above the Prescribed Authority has jurisdiction to impose such conditions as he thinks fit. Therefore, giving of one month's time to the tenant to vacate the shop was in conformity with this provision. He was also competent to award compensation and that part of the order also cannot be assailed on any ground. At stated above the Prescribed Authority has jurisdiction to impose such conditions as he thinks fit. In the instant case he attached a condition that the tenant will not be entitled to receive any compensation if he failed to vacate the shop after thirty days. It was well within his powers. The second Proviso to Section 21 is directory and not mandatory as held in Khalil v. Bhagwan Das and others, 1976 U.P.R.C.C 43 and Inderjit Singh v. Prescribed Authority, AIR 1974 Allahabad 120. The Prescribed Authority was at liberty to award or not to award compensation. If he chose to award compensation he was competent to attach reasonable conditions. The conditions imposed in this case cannot be said to be unreasonable or without jurisdiction. In this view of the matter the writ petition has no force and is dismissed with costs to the opposite party No. 3. The petitioner undertakes to vacate the shop in two months hereof. He will not be evicted during this period.