Judgment

GROVER J.- These appeals which have been brought by certificates from a common judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court arise out of certain acquisition proceedings.

2. The facts may be stated. Plots Nos. 670 and 735 situate in Madan Mahal Extension area, Jabalpur were acquired by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act 1894, hereinafter called the Act for constructing the Home Science College. In the present appeals we are concerned mainly with Plot no. 670. On August 31, 1940, a deed of lease had been executed on behalf of the Municipal Corporation granting a lease free of premium to the Hitkarini Sabha, Jabalpur, which is the appellant before us. The lease was in respect of 19 Acress of land comprising Plot No. 670 and another strip of land measuring 0.621 Acres as described in the deed and delineated in the plan annexed thereto. The period of the lease was 30 years and the purpose for which the land was to be used was for locating and running the Hitkarini City College. Amongst other terms and conditions the appellant was to pay a yearly rent of Rs. 5/- for 10 acres and Re. 1/- for the other strip of land besides paying and discharging all rates and taxes etc. The appellant, on the expiry of the lease, was entitled to have the same renewed on such terms and conditions as might be agreed between the parties. The appellant had built a college hostel on the aforesaid land and had also used the attached grounds as playground for students.

3. The Collector of Jabalpur, by his award dated July 18, 1955 dealt with the claims filed by the appellant and the Municipal Corporation and after disposing of certain preliminary objections he assessed the compensation for the lands in all the three plots at As/8/ per sq. ft. According to the Collector the appellants was not merely a lessee or tenant-at-will as contented by the Corporation but was a lessee for the term mentioned in the lease-deed dated August 31, 1940, the lease having been made for a specific purpose, i.e. for locating and running a City College. As regards Plot No. 670 the apportionment was made between the appellant and the Corporation.

4. The appellant and the Corporation were dissatisfied with the award of the Collector. Applications for reference were made under Section 18 (1) of the Act. The Additional District Judge held that the price should be 10 As. per sq. ft. and that the appellant and the Municipal Corporation were entitled to equal compensation for plot no. 670. The Corporation and the appellant filed appeals to the High Court. The decision of the Additional District Judge fixing the price of the land at As/10/- per sq. f.t was affirmed. As regards the dispute regarding apportionment the High Court held, following a decision of a Division Bench of the same Court in Dagdulal v. Municipal Committee, Burhar, 1960 MPLJ 627, that the lease deed having been executed by the Administrator during the time when the Corporation stood superseded was ineffective to convey the leasehold interest to the appellant. However, the appellant had been paying rent at the stipulated rate which had been accepted for a long time by the Corporation. It amounted, therefore, to the creation of a tenancy by necessary implication and the relationship of landlord and tenant came into existence. On the character of tenancy, whether it should be deemed to be from year to year or whether it should be on the terms contained in the lease-deed, the High Court held that the tenancy continued on the terms contained in the lease deed. The High Court then proceeded to say :-

"The lease deed in this case was executed on 31-8-1940 and was for a period of thirty years It was, therefore to remain in force for 15 years more after the date of acquisition. There is a renewal clause which has been already quoted above. The lessee is entitled for renewal "on such terms and conditions as may be agreed to between the parties". It appears to us that the clause is uncertain and vague and does