Judgment R.H. Zaidi, J. (1) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and also perused the record. (2) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the judgment and order dated 29.7.2000 whereby the appeal filed by the contesting respondent No. 2 against the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 16.5.1998, was allowed and the case was remanded to the trial Court for decision afresh. It appears that the petitioner filed an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act, which was objected to and opposed by respondent No. 2. The Prescribed Authority after going through the material on record allowed the application by judgment and order dated 16.5.1998. Challenging the validity of the said order, respondent No. 2 filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority allowed the said appeal and remanded the case to the Prescribed Authority by its judgment and order dated 29.7.2000. Hence, the present petition. (3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that although, it was urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant respondent No. 2 that the affidavits filed by the petitioner were contradictory and conflicting, but refrained from making any comment on the said argument. The appeal was allowed and the case was remanded only on the ground that provisions of second proviso of sub-section (1) of Section 21 were not followed and two years rent was not awarded as compensation only. It was submitted that the petitioner was willing to pay the amount of two years rent as compensation to the respondent No. 2 therefore, there was no justification for remanding the case. Therefore, the judgment and order passed by the respondent No. 2 dated 29.7.2000 was liable to be quashed. (4) I have considered the submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner. Therefore, the judgment and order passed by the respondent No. 2 dated 29.7.2000 was liable to be quashed. (4) I have considered the submission made by learned Counsel for the petitioner. Second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Act reads as under:- "Provided further that if any application under clause (a) is made in respect of any build in get out exclusively for non-residential purpose, the Prescribed Authority while making the order of eviction shall, after considering all relevant facts of the case, award against the landlord to the tenant an amount not exceeding two years rent as compensation and may, subject to rules, impose such other conditions as it thinks fit." The aforesaid proviso in so far it provides for payment of compensation is mandatory. The quantum of compensation, however, is to be determined after considering all relevant facts of the case which, will not be in excess of two years rent. It was, therefore, necessary for the Prescribed Authority to take into consideration all relevant facts and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. (5) However, learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was ready to pay the amount of compensation, this petition is disposed of finally at this stage, as it will not serve any purpose to keep the matter pending in this Court. It is, therefore, hereby directed that the Prescribed Authority shall decide the case expeditiously preferably within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is communicated to the said authority in accordance with the law taking into consideration the offer made by learned Counsel for the petitioner to pay the amount of compensation. It is further observed that in case the respondent No. 2 feels aggrieved by this order, liberty to him to approach this Court for ventilation of his grievance, if any. (6) With these observation and directions, this petition stands finally disposed of. Petition disposed of.