Delhi High Court
M/S. Space Era Electronics Pvt. ... vs Raj Kumar Kalra & Ors. on 9 February, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ L.A. Appeal No. 581/2009
% 9th February, 2011
M/S. SPACE ERA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Rakesh Malhotra, Advocate.
VERSUS
RAJ KUMAR KALRA & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Rajeev Kumar Ra, Advocate
for the respondent No.1.
Mr. Ashish Tanwar, Advocate for
Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate for
the respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of this first appeal under Section 54
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the „said Act‟)
is to the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.8.2009 whereby the
reference under Sections 30-31 of the said Act was decided. The need for
reference arose for deciding the apportionment of the compensation
between the appellant/tenant and respondent No.1/landlord.
L.A. Appeal No. 581/09 Page 1 of 3
2. The admitted fact is that the appellant led no evidence in the
trial Court with respect to the value of his tenancy or the value of the work
done by him in the tenanted premises. In fact, no cross examination of
respondent No.1/landlord was done. Further, as noted in the impugned
judgment and decree, the appellant got alternative premises under a
rehabilitation policy of DMRC. Considering all the facts, the trial Court has
granted 10% of the compensation to the appellant. I do not find any
illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment which calls for
interference by the Court.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to Satyawati G.
Mohatta Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1994 (31) DRJ 102 (DB), a
Division Bench decision of this Court, in which it was held in the facts of
that case that apportionment should be in the ratio of 75% to the landlord
and 25% for the tenant. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon
paras 5 and 6 of the judgment and which read as under:-
"5. Mr. Seth, learned counsel for the appellants, said that the
land had been let out to one Badam Singh at a monthly rent of
Rs.87.50.00 and that he without their permission inducted sub-
tenants who in turn made unauthorised structures. Since they
were liable to eviction, it was contended that they were not
entitled to any share in the compensation. Mr.Seth said that
Badam Singh was a tenant of open space which was outside the
purview of the rent control laws as applicable to Delhi and that
he could be evicted after termination of tenancy by giving 15
days notice.
6. It is difficult to lay down an exact formula for apportioning the
amount of compensation between the landlord and the tenant
which would be of any general application. When in arriving at
the market value of the land under acquisition an amount of
arbitrariness creeps in, any order for apportionment may also
appear to be arbitrary. The apportionment of compensation
L.A. Appeal No. 581/09 Page 2 of 3
between the landlord and tenant cannot be same in all the cases
and it has to be different in different cases relying on the facts of
that particular case. Of course, a distinction has to be drawn
where a tenant is liable for immediate eviction for some
contravention of the tenancy agreement either under the
Transfer of Property Act or under the rent control laws and
where a tenant is protected under the rent control laws as may
be applicable. Considering all the facts in the present case, we
find no error in the order of the Collector or the learned
Additional District Judge apportioning the amount of
compensation between the owners and tenants in the ratio of 75
: 25."
In my opinion paras 5 and 6 in fact go in favour of the
respondent No.1 and against the appellant because the Division Bench
has noted that there is no exact formula of apportionment of
compensation between the landlord and a tenant and it all depends on
the facts and circumstances of each case as to what should be the
apportionment. In the present case, the trial Court has exercised its
discretion of granting 10% compensation to the appellant, and which
cannot be interfered with by the Court because the appellant himself lead
no evidence to show the value of his tenancy.
4. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the appeal
which is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own
costs.
FEBRUARY 09, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
