( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise from the judgment and order dated 15th September 1958 of the learned Joint Judge Ahmedabad in Compensation case No. 137 of 1958 arising under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereafter called the Act ). The case raises the question of apportionment of the amount of compensation between a landlord and his tenant. The facts which need be stated in order to dispose off the two appeals are as follows. The Government acquired 4363 square yards from out of survey No. 2 which measured 10164 square yards and 10252 square yards from out of survey No. 3 which measured 23716 square yards. The total amount of compensation which was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer for the aforesaid two areas was Rs. 1 4 877 paise. Two sets of parties laid claim to the aforesaid amount of compensation. One was the Bharatkhand Textile Manufacturing Company Limited Ahmedabad. Admittedly that Company was the lessee of the two survey numbers. The lease deeds under which the company claimed title as a lessee are Exs. 27 and 28 both dated 7th July 1930 and both drawn up in identical terms except in regard to the stipulation regarding the amount of rent. It is an admitted fact that at the date of the notification under section 4 of the Act the interest of the landlord in survey No. 2 vested in Mulshanker Somnath appellant of appeal No. 530 of 1960. He is since dead and he is now represented by his heirs. It is also an admitted fact that at the relevant time the landlords interest tn survey No. 3 vested in Mulshanker and one Madhusudan Nathalal and that the former was entitled to a ten annas share in the landlords interest and the latter six annas share in the same. Mulshanker was claimant No. 1 and Madhusudan was claimant No. 2. The Land Acquisition Officer decided that the landlords were entitled to a sum of Rs. 14 319 from out of the total amount of compensation and that the lessee was entitled to the balance. Both the sides felt aggrieved by this decision of the Land Acquisition Officer and claimed a reference under section 30 of the Act. The reference was made to the District Court at Ahmedabad and it was numbered 137 of 1958. The learned Judge held that the landlords were entitled to 1/4th amount of compensation and that the lessee was entitled to 3/4th amount of compensation. Only Mulshanker from out of the two landlords felt aggrieved by the aforesaid decision and he has preferred appeal No. 530 of 1960. Therefore the question which arises in that appeal for determination is as to what is the share which Mulshanker is entitled to in the amount of compensation determined for survey Nos. 2 and 3. The lessee has preferred appeal No. 531 of 1960 and the question which arises in that appeal is what share the landlords are entitled to in the whole amount of compensation. The rival contentions are as follows. According to the landlord Mulshanker the amount of compensation must be divided half to half between the landlord and the tenant. According to the lessee the landlord is entitled to compensation on the basis of the rent payable to him capitalized at 64 plus a further reasonable amount of compensation for some other rights which he is entitled to under the two leases. These are the two rival contentions the correctness of which is required to be examined in the present two appeals;

( 2 ) IN our judgment it will be convenient first of all to examine the rights of each of the parties under the two transactions embodied is the two lease deeds Exs. 27 and 28 before taking up the question of apportionment of the amount of compensation. We propose to examine the terms of only one of the two leases because as we have already mentioned and there is no dispute about this the terms of the other lease are almost the same. Ex. 27 is the lease deed in respect of survey No. 3. The lessors are (1) Somnath the predecessor-in-title of appellant Mulshanker (2) Somnaths brother Chhotalal and (3) Nathalal the fa