JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Johny. L. Tochhawng learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the impugned Judgment & Order dated 10.4.2019 passed by Senior Civil Judge, Kolasib in Civil Suit No. 6 of 2012, wherein the Trial Court has directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the plaintiff which, according to the appellant is without any lawful justification and in conflict with the material evidence on record. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the Appellant is a Non-profit, Education Institution (CBSE), Christened ‘Jawahar Navodaya Vidhalaya’ (JNV) primarily functioning for the upliftment of the education with a minimum cost. A tender notice was floated for one financial year i.e. 2010-2011 for a TUCK SHOP to meet the needs of the institution, wherein, the Respondent/plaintiff had responded to the said tender which was then allotted to him with a permission to run the Tuck shop for the financial year 2010-2011. Thereafter, on his own risk he constructed a permanent structure for running the TUCK SHOP within the JVN premises. That the conduct of the respondent being dissatisfactory, the appellant on the expiry of the term of the said TUCK SHOP intimated to vacate the Vidhalaya campus by letter dated 13.4.2012. The respondent in turn, claimed compensation of Rs.30,57,187/- for his voluntarily permanent construction since the appellants did not raise any object during the construction. That from the pleadings of the parties seven issues were framed by the trial court as under : Issue No.1… Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to frame the case? Issue No.2… Whether there is any cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and against the Defendants. Issue No.3… Whether the Defendants has any authority to cancel the permit of Tuck Shop. Issue No.4… Whether the action of the Defendants in directing the plaintiff to vacate Vidyalaya Campus by 30.04.2012 is illegal Issues No.5… Whether the plaintiff has any vested right to continue the Tuck Shop within the JNV premises. Issue No.6… Whether the plaintiff has constructed his building without any land pass, full concerned authority and by his own wish. IssueNo.7… Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief claimed? If so, to what extend. 4. The Trial Court decided issues Nos.1 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff and decided issues Nos. Issue No.6… Whether the plaintiff has constructed his building without any land pass, full concerned authority and by his own wish. IssueNo.7… Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief claimed? If so, to what extend. 4. The Trial Court decided issues Nos.1 and 3 in favour of the plaintiff and decided issues Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 & 7 in favour of the appellant/defendant. The Trial Court also ordered for payment of Rs.5 lakhs to the plaintiff/respondent by the appellant/defendant and hence this appeal. 5. Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the ld. Trial Court has already made findings while deciding issue No.7, that the Respondent/Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief claim, as such, an order for payment of Rs.5,00,000/- is out of the settled issues and is not tenable. That the Term and conditions for TUCK SHOP was well acquainted by the Respondent/Plaintiff by giving seal and signature in the said Term & condition for the Tuck Shop and he cannot claim any right beyond the term and condition which he voluntarily undertake. He further submits that the Appellant/defendant had warned the Respondent/Plaintiff not to construct the TUCK SHOP in permanent nature and this is affirmed during the trial by the Appellant and is not rebutted or disputed by the Respondent/Plaintiff during his cross-examination in trial. That after the expiry of TUCK SHOP Permit, the Respondent/Plaintiff returned all the security deposit; therefore, there is no further tie(s) between the parties. And the respondent/plaintiff ought to leave the JNV premises with all his belonging rather than granting compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs) by the learned Trial Court. That there is no provision of law to claim compensation for unauthorized and illegal construction. In support of his claim the learned counsel has cited the Apex court decision in M/s Radhakrishna Agarwal & Other Vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in 1977 (3) SCC 457 para 25. 6. Mr. Jonny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel for the respondent in all fairness submits that the trial court has acted beyond the pleadings of the parties in granting a compensation of Rupees Five Lakhs to the plaintiff/appellant. He further submits that the matter may be remanded back to the learned Trial Court for de novo trial. 7. 6. Mr. Jonny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel for the respondent in all fairness submits that the trial court has acted beyond the pleadings of the parties in granting a compensation of Rupees Five Lakhs to the plaintiff/appellant. He further submits that the matter may be remanded back to the learned Trial Court for de novo trial. 7. Having considered the submissions of both the parties the court finds that the only issue to be looked into in this appeal is the order of the Trial Court granting a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakhs) only and need not interfere with the other issues decided therein. It is seen that the appellant has not raised any grievance against the findings of the Trial Court in deciding issues No. 1 to 7 framed & no cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22, CPC has been filed by the respondent. It is also seen that this issue of whether or not to grant as a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- by the Trial Court to the respondent was not raised at any point of time during the trial of the case in the lower court. No evidence in this regard was adduced by neither of the parties. The learned Trial Court has also not mentioned any reason or basis for granting the compensation of Rupees Five lakhs to the plaintiff/respondent to be paid by the appellant/defendant. 8. For the above reason, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met by setting aside this portion of the Judgment & Order dated 10.4.2019, wherein the Trial Court in Civil Suit No. 6 of 2012 has directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-to the plaintiff/respondent. 9. RFA No.5 of 2020 accordingly stands disposed of.