IMPORTANT POINT
For apportionment of compensation between the landlord and tenant in land acquisition case, Court is required to take into consideration relevant factors viz, duration of lease, nature of right to enjoyment of lease hold interest and improvements the tenant made one the land.

ORDER

Substitution allowed.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Delhi High Court, made on 18.8.1996, in RFA No. 87 of 1974.

3. The undisputed facts are that on January 25, 1949, the respondent was granted a lease of the Government land for 30 years with a right to further renewal from time to time, upto a maximum period of 99 years. Since the land was required for acquisition, notice was issued on July 23, 1960 terminating the tenancy of the respondent. The respondent filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge who held that the lease still subsisted and, therefore, the respondent could not be evicted. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act ) was published on February 17, 1967 acquiring the land for planned development of the City of Delhi. The Land Acquisition Officer gave his award on June 6, 1967 determining the compensation @ Rs. 4,000/- per bigha. On reference, the Additional District Judge, by his award and decree dated 2.11.1973 enhanced the compensation to Rs. 17,000/- per bigha; apportionment was also effected. On appeal by the State and by the claimant also, the High Court while affirming the apportionment of 75% of the tenant and 25% to the landlord, has enhanced the compensation to Rs. 28,387/- per bigha. The High Court also applied the provisions of Amendment Act 68/84 and awarded the enhanced solatium, interest and additional amount. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

4. The High Court in the judgment has noted that the lands are situated in the developed area and are very near to the developed localities belonging to the private parties and Government. Therefore, it possesses the potential value for use for building purposes. Accordingly, it has determined the compensation @ Rs. 28, 387/- per bigha. We think that the determination of the market value on the basis of the above consideration is not vitiated by any error of principle.

5. The next question that arises for consideration is: whether the respondent is entitled to the benefit of the Amendment Act 68 of 1984? In view of the fact that the award of the reference Court is of November 2, 1973, the Amendment Act would apply and, therefore, the claimants are entitled to the solatium at 15% and interest at 6% on the enhanced compensation from the date of taking possession till date of deposit in the court.

6. The next question is: to what proportion the landlord that the tenant are entitled to vis-a-vis the compensation? Though the appellant had terminated the tenancy, on appeal, it was restored. Thereafter, they remained in possession as tenant. The appellant initiated the acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, though the covenant in the lease deed provided the right of dispossession and for taking possession for public purpose. In view of the fact that the order become final and the possession was not taken, pursuant to the termination of the tenancy, and since the acquisition was initiated under the Act, the respondent is entitled to the payment of the compensation. The right of tenancy is a right under which a tenant is entitled to enjoy the possessory titleand enjoyment of the leased land subject to covenants relating to ejection after due determination of tenancy. It is seen that the lease was granted in 1949 and it was terminated in 1960 and the acquisition was initiated in 1967 on which date he continued to be in possession of the property; therefore, this Court has to consider the apportionment of the compensation on that basis. The judgment in Mangat Ram & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.1, relates to the commercial premises which was acquired by the Government and the apportionment of the compensation was made at 75% and 25% to the tenant and the landlord respectively. It was challenged by the landlord for full payment. In that perspective, this Court upheld the grant of the apportionment at 75% and 25% to the tenant and the landlord respectively.

The