R. C. CHOPRA ( 1 ) THIS CM (Main) was filed by the petitioner-tenant against his respondent-landlord challenging an order dated 22/09/2000 passed by learned Additional Rent control Tribunal, Delhi by which the appeal filed by the respondent-landlord against an order directing restoration of the tenanted premises was allowed and considering the fact that the tenanted premises had already been demolished and a new multi-storyed structure had come up at the site, a compensation of Rs. 75,000. 00 was awarded to the petitioner-tenant in lieu of restoration of the tenanted premises. ( 2 ) A learned Single Judge of this Court vide orders dated 15/11/2000, after noticing that the premises from which the petitioner was dispossessed had already been demolished and a new building had been constructed on the land observed that the additional Rent Control Tribunal was justified in declining the request for restoration but admitted the petition on the limited question of adequacy of compensation. ( 3 ) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. ( 4 ) THE facts relevant for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that on the basis of an eviction petition filed by the respondent-landlord, the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioner, who was the tenant in the premises in question was dispossessed by an ex-parte eviction order. The tenant after his dispossession, moved the Court of Additional rent Controller who vide orders dated 3/03/2000, set aside the ex-parte eviction order. It was brought to the notice of learned ARC that the tenanted premises had already been demolished and a new building had been erected by the decree-holder but still he passed orders directing the decree-holder to provide to the LRs. of the deceased tenant accommodation of similar dimensions with same amenities in the newly constructed building. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the respondent-landlord went in appeal to the Additional rent Control Tribunal who vide impugned orders dated 22/09/2000, came to the conclusion that in view of the fact that the tenant had been evicted about 10 years back and the premises from which he was dispossessed had been demolished and a new multi-storyed structure had been constructed, the tenant could be only compensated as the restoration of the possession of the premises was neither possible nor feasible. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case a compensation of Rs. 75,000. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case a compensation of Rs. 75,000. 00 was ordered to be paid to the petitioner-tenant by respondent-landlord. ( 5 ) AFTER considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by learned Additional Rent Control tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever on account of award of compensation in lieu of restoration of the tenanted premises as it was not possible to put the petitioner back in possession. This petition also was admitted on the limited question of the adequacy of the compensation. The blame for the situation that developed cannot be put only on the respondent-landlord for the reason that after his dispossession from the tenanted premises, the tenant ought to have obtained some orders from the Court concerned so as to preserve and protect the tenanted premises till the disposal of his application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside the ex-parte eviction order. However, nothing was done in this regard. The petitioner was dispossessed from the premises in question on 31/03/1990 whereas the orders by Additional Rent Controller setting aside the ex-parte eviction order and directing the respondent-landlord to provide accommodation to the LRs of the tenant were passed on 20/11/1999. This period was long enough to justify the act of the respondent-landlord to put his property to best possible use and as such, no fault can be found with him for demolishing the tenanted premises and constructing a new building in its place. ( 6 ) IN the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to place before this Court any precedent or principle of law for computing the compensation in such like situation. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, agreed that the compensation may be enhanced by another Rs. 25,000. 00. This Court is also of the considered view that a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 would be a just and fair compensation to the petitioner in lieu of the restoration of the premises which is not possible. ( 7 ) IN the result, the petition is partly allowed and the respondent is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 to the petitioner within 30 days. The amount may be deposited with the Registry of this Court if not accepted by the petitioner.