1. Although the Officiating District Judge has not stated the principle upon which he has made his apportionment I think that, in the result, he is right. The question is one of the apportionment of certain compensation money awarded under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, as between the landlord and the tenant of the land taken by the Railway Company. The compensation money amounted to Rs. 600, and the Court below has ordered it to be divided in equal shares between the landlord and the tenant. The landlord complains of this, and has appealed. In the case of Khetter Kristo Hitter v. Dinendra Narain Roy (1897) 3 C.W.N. 202. I expressed my view as to the apportionment of the compensation money as between landlord and tenant, and in effect followed the course taken in the case of Dunne v. Nobo Krishna Mookerjee (1889) I.L.R. 17 Cal. 145 (147) though I spoke of it as a somewhat rough and ready method of settlement. But in a quite recent case, which came before Mr. Justice Banerjee and myself, we said that the method we adopted in the case of Khetter Kristo Mitter v. Dinendra Narain Rhoy (1897) 3 C.W.N. 202 was not to be regarded as laying down a hard and fast rule applicable to every case. Speaking for myself, I think that the principle, upon which the compensation money in cases of this class ought to be apportioned as between the landlord and tenant, is as follows: First, the Court must ascertain the amount of rent payable to the landlord and capitalize that rent at so many years' purchase, the number of years' purchase depending upon the particular circumstances of each particular case. The landlord is at the outset entitled to that capitalized value, but I think he is entitled to something more. There is, or in many cases may be, the chance of an enhancement of the then existing rent; he is entitled in my opinion to have the value of this chance of enhancement assessed, and to have a money value put upon it, and to take that money value out of the compensation awarded. It may in some, perhaps in many cases, be some what difficult to arrive at the true capitalized value to the landlord of this chance of enhancement, but it will be for the landlord who sets up such a claim to make it out and show what the true value is I do not think the landlord can be entitled to anything more, nor have I heard it suggested that he can be. After thus providing for the claims of the landlord the balance ought to be paid to the tenant. Applying then these principles to the case before us, I do not think that the landlord has any cause for complaint. He has received Rs. 300 out of Rs. 600. His rent is Rs. 10: the Court has valued this at 15 years' purchase, which gives a capitalized sum of Rs. 150. It is not clear for what the remaining Rs. 150 has been given to him; if for the chance of enhancement of rent it is a handsome award, for it proceeds upon the footing of an enhancement of another Rs. 10 rent per annum at 15 years' purchase, although upon this question the landlord went into no evidence before the Collector. But assuming that the landlord is entitled to 20 years' purchase of his rent, that would give him Rs. 200. Even then he has been awarded a further sum of Rs. 100 as representing the capitalized value of his chance of an enhanced rent, which at 20 years' purchase would mean an enhanced rent of Rs. 5 per annum. From either point of view then, the landlord has received his full share of the compensation money. The appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.
2. I am of the same opinion.
3. I concur.