ORDER :

K. Ramaswamy and N. Venkatachala, JJ.

These appeals are disposed of by this common Order since a common question of law arises in them. The admitted facts are that all the appellants were perpetual lessees under contractual leases entered into prior to the coming into force of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 (for short the Act) on April 15, 1953. One of the covenants in such leases provided that in the event of acquisition of the land by the Government, the lessor shall be entitled to the entire compensation for the land and the lessees shall be entitled to the value of the standing crops, trees etc. on the land. In other words, the lessors while were given the right to get compensation for the land, the lessees were given the right to get compensation for the unufructs of the land. However, the Government exercising its power of eminent domain published in the State Gazette, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 proposing acquisition of the land for a public purpose. The Collector, thereafter determined the compensation payable for the acquired land and on reference, the Civil Court enhanced that compensation. We are not concerned in these appeals with the quantum of compensation determined by the Collector under Section 11 of the Act or the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Act. When the appellants-lessees made the claim for compensation for the acquired land and usufructs therein, the stand taken by them was that they had become absolute owners of the land as well as its unufructs by operation of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 and as such they were entitled to the payment of the entire compensation therefor. Alternatively, it was their stand that they were entitled to share the compensation alongwith the lessors. The High Court relying on the said covenant in the lease, concluded that the lessors were entitled to the entire compensation payable for the land and that the lessees had no right whatsoever in such compensation. The High Court, however, made a distinction agreeing with the Civil Court, between the lessees under written lease and the lessees under oral lease, and held that the lessees under oral lease while were entitled to obtain a share of the amount of compensation, the lessees under written lease were not entitled to obtain such share. The lessor was found entitled to the payment of 20 times capitalised value of the annual rent while the lessee was found entitled to the balance of compensation. As regards written leases, it was found that the lessor was entitled to the entire compensation. Directions for payment of the compensation purporting to be under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act were accordingly issued. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the High Court.

2. This Court while granting leave stated thus :

"Special leave granted confining to the question of apportionment of compensation between the perpetual lessee and the landlord...."

3. The question therefore, is whether the appellants, perpetual lessees, were entitled to the apportionment in the amount of compensation payable for the acquired land, and if so, at what rate. The High Court had recorded a finding in paragraph 26 of its judgment that the lessor was entitled to the portion of compensation which was 20 times the capitalised value of annual rent. That finding has become final since it has not been questioned in these appeals. Therefore, if we find that the perpetual lessees were entitled to any payment out of compensation they would be entitled to the balance amount with solatium and interest payable thereon.

4. The important point, therefore, is whether the covenants in the contractual lease bind the perpetual lessees, after coming into force of the Act. Indisputably, the object of the Act was to confer security of tenure on the lessees of agricultural lands enumerated in Section 9 of the Act. Section 8 of the Act, howe