K S BANERJEE Vs. JATINDRA NATH PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal No. 144 is on behalf of the claimant 2. His learned advocate after the arguments were heard in the other two connected appeals, did not think it proper to press this appeal. It is, therefore, dismissed but without, costs.

(2.) Appeals Nos. 77 and 78 are by claimant 1. Two questions were pressed with reference to appeal No. 77. The first is as to on what basis the apportionment of the compensation should be made as between claimant 1 who is the landlord, and claimant 2, the tenant. The learned President capitalized the rent payable to the landlord for the unexpired portion of the lease which had to run for about 85 years from the date at the acquisition on a 6 per cent, basis and the reversion was valued on the basis of 6f per cent. The contention on behalf of the appellant is that the basis taken by the learned President is against the evidence given by the experts on both sides. Mr. Johnston was examined on behalf of claimant 2, the tenant, and his evidence was that if the whole of the leasehold property had to be valued with reference to the interest, of claimant 1, the rent which the landlord was entitled to get for the leasehold as well as the reversion would have been valued on the 4 per cent, basis as regards the land. The real fact on the evidence may be shortly stated thus, basing it on the evidence of Mr. Johnston : He said that the rent of the landlord on the 4 per cant, basis on the market value awarded for the land itself would be about Rs. 2,240. The rent allocated with regard to this price of land as payable to claimant 1 is Rs. 720. The margin of profit to the lessee would, therefore, be something like Rs. 1,500 a month. The security for the rent which claimant 1 was entitled to get under the circumstances is more than satisfactory. Therefore, the value of the lessor's interests cannot be held to be as low as the President has put it. Any purchaser, however cautious he may be, would gladly pay 25 years purchase money for the interest of the landlord. In addition to this our attention has been drawn by the learned advocate for the appellant to the provisions of the lease under which the lessee not only deposited with the lessor sufficient security to the extent of one lakh of rupees, for payment of the rent but kept in deposit three months rent in advance over and above the security deposit of one lakh of rupees. Under these circumstances the rent reserved is protected by unquestionably valuable security and the lessee is certainly entitled to claim that he should be paid a higher price than what has been given to him by the learned President.

(3.) The learned President has in valuing the reversion valued it at a rate less than he valued the bare land with regard to the contiguous property which was No. 123/1 which was also acquired. The contention on behalf of the appellant is that the reversion in the case of the land in question No. 123 should not be taken to be of less value than the bare land because there are buildings on it. It seems to us that the proposition is quite reasonable. The value of land does not deteriorate if there is any building upon it. The buildings may no doubt deteriorate, but when the reversion of bare land is valued on the 4 4per cent, basis there does not seem to be any good reason why the land with building on it should be valued at less than the value of the land. The evidence given by Mr. Johnston may again be referred to in this connexion. He says: The ground rent of No. 123 would have been 4 per cent. The value of the structures on it was Rs. 9,000 odd as standing structures.