A mere notification under the Land Acquisition Act does not transfer ownership; landlord-tenant relationship persists until property vests.

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff arising out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 25,563/9/- comprising of a sum of Rs. 22,105/9/- as arrears of rent for the period commencing from 1st April 1952 to 7th September 1955 and a sum of Rs. 3,457/12/- as interest on the aforesaid amount. It is not disputed that the land belonged to the appellant. The land was utilised by the plaintiff company for the purposes of its railway which was known as Dibru Sadiya Railway, one of the concerns of the plaintiff. Dibru - Sadiya Railway was taken over by the Government of India in the year 1945. But the plaintiff continued to be the owner of this land. The land was then taken possession of by the Bengal Assam Railway administration and was used by the said Railway with effect from 1st April 1945. It was then taken over by the North Eastern Railway which has been impleaded as defendant No. 2 to the suit. Defendant No. 1 is the Union of India. The Bengal Assam Railway was reconstituted and was named as Assam Railway. The Assam Railway administration was in the hands of the Union Government. The plaintiff agreed to accept the sum of Rs. 6,433-6-0 as rent per annum in respect of the land in dispute. After the reconstitution of the Assam Railway and the other Railways in India, this area formed part of the newly constituted North Eastern Railway. The rent was paid up to the 24th November 1951 by the defendant the North Eastern Railway. But after the 24th November, 1951 in spite of the demand no rent has been paid by the defendant.

2. It is not disputed by the defendants that they are the successors of the Bengal Assam Railway and that they are tenants in respect of this land for the period for which the rent has been, claimed. The case of the defendants is that on the 24th November 1951 a notification was issued under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act indicating that the land was sought to be acquired for the purposes of the Railway. The proceedings went on till on the 7th September 1955 an award was given under which the plaintiff was awarded some compensation. The plaintiff has thus claimed his arrears of rent from the 1st April 1952 till 7th September 1955. The defence taken was that as this amount could have been claimed by the plaintiff as a part of the compensation for the acquisition of the land, the plaintiff is not entitled to bring any suit for the recovery of the aforesaid amount as arrears of rent.

3. As I have already pointed out, the ownership of the plaintiff is not denied. It is not also denied that there was relationship of the landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants. The point taken by the defendants mainly is that because of the land acquisition proceedings the amount could be claimed by the plaintiff as part of the compensation and no suit will be for the recovery of the aforesaid amount.

4. The trial Court dismissed the suit. The reasoning of the trial Court in our opinion is erroneous. The trial Court has held that because the proceedings commenced from the date of the issue of the notice under S.4, the Government intended to acquire the land with effect from the 24th November 1951. It is further held by the Court below that as the proceedings commenced with effect from the 24th November 1951, this amount could have been claimed by the plaintiff as a part of the compensation in the land acquisition proceeding itself and no separate suit will lie. In our opinion there is no substance in any of these contentions made by the defendant.

5. The notice under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') does not by itself vest the property in the Government. It only gives an indication that the Government proposes to acquire the land for a pu