RFA No. 2279 of 1993 [1] In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: August 04 , 2009 (1) R.F.A. No. 2279 of 1993 (O&M) Smt. Manbhari and others .. Appellants v. Haryana State and others .. Respondents (2) R.F.A. No. 2280 of 1993 (O&M) Lakhmi Chand (deceased) through LRs .. Appellants v. Haryana State and others .. Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. J. R. Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Lalit Sharma and Kashmir Singh, Advocates for the appellants. Mr. Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for Mandir Nar Singh Puri. Rajesh Bindal J. This order will dispose of above mentioned two appeals, as common questions of law and facts are involved. The tenants are in appeal against the award of the learned court below, whereby the applications filed by them under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, `the Act') regarding apportionment of compensation for the acquired land have been rejected. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the court below has misread the evidence led by them on record to hold that they are not entitled to apportionment of compensation as tenants on the acquired land. It was submitted that in fact the appellants were tenants on the acquired land since long. Due to error in the revenue record, as against the land in possession of Sohan Lal, name of Lakhmi Chand was shown and land in possession of Lakhmi Chand was shown RFA No. 2279 of 1993 [2] to be in possession of Sohan Lal. It is not disputed that Sohan Lal and Lakhmi Chand were tenants under Mandir Nar Singh Puri. Merely on account of that error, the tenants could not possibly be deprived of their right to apportionment of compensation. Without prejudice to the submissions made above, it was submitted that even if it is not considered to be an error in the revenue records, at the most it can be said to be a case of exchange of possession by the tenants. Once both the persons were admittedly under the tenancy of Mandir Nar Singh Puri, it can be said that they were in possession of the land representing the original tenant under the landlord. A tenant is always entitled to get the land cultivated through some one else and in that situation, his rights as tenants are not taken away. To substantiate his submissions, reference was made to document Annexure `A' with the application filed under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC for leading additional evidence, i.e., application filed by the landlord for claiming rent from various tenants. The application was filed on 1.4.1986 before the Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Hissar in which the land in question in possession of the appellants is mentioned and so is their names as one of the tenants. It was sought to be pleaded that even after acquisition, the landlord is admitting that the appellants were in fact tenants on the acquired land. The judgment reported as Amar Nath v. Haryana State through Collector Karnal and others, 1990(1) RLR 92, as has been relied upon by the learned court below, is sought to be distinguished claiming that in the aforesaid case, the man was not found to be in possession of the land there, as he was claiming himself to be tenant without payment of any Batai. Further reference was placed upon Jai Pal Singh and others v. Smt. Kapur Kaur, 1967 PLJ 186 to submit that even if a person holds land under another person and is liable to pay rent for that land, he is a tenant. Reference was also made to Shian Singh v. Khushia and others, Civil Judgements (Record) 36 as well. On the other hand, learned counsel for the landlord submitted that the appellants were tenants for a short duration. In fact, the revenue record produced by them itself shows that they had parted with possession of the land to some other person and the moment possession was parted with, they had lost their right of tenancy, as the tenancy rights were given to a tenant on the land originally given to him and not on the exchanged portion. It was admitted case of the tenants that they had exchanged the land among themselves without the consent of the landlord. It was a case of sub-letting which was not permissible. On that account, the tenants had lost their tenancy rights and they were liable to be evicted. Even on account of non-payment of rent/Batai also, they had no right to remain in possession of the property. Considering the aforesaid facts, the submission is that RFA No. 2279 of 1993 [3] the learned court below had rightly rejected the claim of the appellants while relying upon the judgment of this Court in Amar Nath's case (supra). Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant referred record. The fact that predecessors-in-interest of the appellants were tenants for a particular portion of land owned by the landlord, namely, Mandir Nar Singh Puri is not in dispute. The claim of the appellants regarding apportionment of compensation on account of acquisition of land in their possession is sought to be disputed with the plea that they are not in actual physical possession of the land, which was given to them on rent. Rather, both of them had exchanged possession with each other and with the same they had lost their tenancy rights and once they were no more tenants, there was no question of their entitlement to apportionment, has no legs to stand. It is not a case where the predecessors-in-interest of the appellants were not found to be in possession of any portion of land. Rather, the admitted case is that both the tenants were in possession of the land of each other. The same is even reflected in the revenue record. For the purpose of cultivation also, one can give possession of the land to other person. In case the landlord is seeking to project a case of loss of tenancy rights on account of alleged sub-letting, it has not been pointed out as to whether any proceedings were initiated for the purpose. The tenants in question were found to be in possession of the land, though different than what was given to them on rent, but the quantity thereof being the same. Copy of the application placed on record by the appellants filed by the landlord on 1.4.1986 before Assistant Collector IInd Grade, Hissar, claiming arrears of rent from the tenants including the appellants is not in dispute. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, the claim of the appellants to apportionment of compensation on account of acquisition of land in their possession cannot be negated. As far as percentage of compensation is concerned, the issue regarding the same having already been dealt with by this Court in R.F.A. No. 3300 of 1993 –Mandir Narsingh Puri, Hissar v. Chandu and others, decided on 31.1.2007, where on account of acquisition of land owned by Mandir Narsingh Puri regarding the dispute of apportionment with other tenants was considered and the apportionment to the extent of 2/3rd and 1/3rd between the landlord and the tenant, respectively, was upheld. In my opinion, the same rule of apportionment deserves to be applied in the present case as well. Accordingly, the present appeals filed by the tenants are accepted and while setting aside the award of the learned court below, the appellants/tenants RFA No. 2279 of 1993 [4] are held entitled to apportionment of compensation to the extent of 1/3rd. The appeals are disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge August 04 , 2009 mk