Judgment

S. M. FAZAL ALI, J.:- This appeal by certificate is directed against a judgment dated January 6, 1969 of the Allahabad High Court and arises in the following circumstances.

2. The land in dispute originally belonged to Smt. Jawahar Devi who had inherited the same from her father Shankar Das who died sometime in or before the year 1905. Jawahar Devi had a daughter Putli Bibi who had three sons, namely, Basantlal, Shankarlal and Girdharilal. Jawahar Devi died in the year 1934.

3. On the 25th February, 1905, Jawshar Devi let out the land to the late Lala Lachman Das for the construction of a mill which was known as Narain Das Lachman Das Oil Mill. The lease was to continue for 50 years and contained a clause for renewal. In the year 1936-37, the lessee Lachman Das transferred his rights in the lease to Northern India Oil Industries Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company). Thereafter, the three sons of Putli Bibi sent a notice on the 15th of December 1937 to M/s. Narain Dass Lachman Dass claiming damages. At that stage Girdharilal sold his rights in the land to his brother Basant Lal. In the year 1938, a suit was filed by Basantlal and Shankarlal against M/s. Narain Dass Lachman Dass as well as the Company. This suit was, however, compromised on the 2nd of June, 1941 and on the same date a fresh lease was executed by the two plaintiffs there-in in favour of the Company. The terms of the lease were incorporated in the compromise (Exhibit 31) but both the lease and the compromise were contained in unregistered documents.

4. Disputes again arose between the parties and led to the institution of a suit by the Company against Basantlal and Shankarlal for specific performance of the compromise above mentioned (Exhibit 31). This suit also ended on the 26th of May 1943 in a compromise according to which a fresh lease embodying the terms of the lease dated the 2nd June 1941 was to be executed by Basantlal and Shankarlal in favour of the Company and at its cost within a week provided the Company complied with the covenants contained in that lease to the satisfaction of Rai Bahadur Lala Ram Narain, Treasurer, Imperial Bank of India, Kanpur. Despite the second compromise disputes again cropped up between the parties and ultimately Basantlal and Shankarlal, who are the appellants before us, sent to the Company a notice dated 26th of February 1944 (Exhibit 36-A) terminating the lease dated the 2nd June 1941 on the ground of breach by the Company of covenants 2, 4 and 5 contained therein. Time was allowed to the Company till the 30th June 1944 for the removal of machinery, stores, buildings and other constructions. The Company, however, secured an order from a civil court forbidding the appellants from ejecting it.

5. On the 7th June 1946, the Company applied to the State Government for compulsory acquisition of the land. Its request was accepted and the land covered by the lease was acquired by the Government for the purpose of the Company. In proceedings before the Collector the appellants claimed compensation not only for the land but also for the buildings and other structures standing thereon. Compensation for the land was awarded to them but the rest of their claim was turned down. The matter was re-agitated before the District Judge to whom it was referred and then in appeal before the High Court. The District Judge and the High Court raised the quantum of compensation for the land but rejected the claim of the appellants for compensation in respect of buildings and structures.

6. In the appeal before us no dispute subsists about the compensation for the land and the controversy is limited to the compensation for the buildings, etc., which were constructed on the premises by the lessee and to which the appellants claim title on the ground that the Company did not remove the same despite a period of more than 4 months granted to it for the purpose in the notice dated the 26th of February 1944 and that the title thereto had con