Compensation apportionment for acquired land may follow a rebuttable 10:6 estimate between landlord and occupancy tenant.

Where acquired land has special building potential and no definite evidence exists of custom, practice or agreement, compensation may be apportioned between the landlord and the occupancy tenant on a rough and rebuttable estimate of their respective interests. The landlord's interest is limited to rent and proprietary rights, while the occupancy tenant's interest reflects actual possession, loss of occupation, and surrender value. Earlier decisions are treated as supporting a practical method of valuation, not a fixed rule of law, so the presumed 10:6 ratio applies only until displaced by other circumstances.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the absence of specific evidence of custom, practice or agreement, the compensation for acquired land should be apportioned between the landlord and the occupancy tenant in the ratio of 10:6.

Analysis: The land acquired had a special value as a potential building site, so the enhanced value could not fairly be treated as belonging wholly either to the landlord or to the occupancy tenant. The landlord's interest was limited in practice to receipt of rent and his proprietary interest, while the occupancy tenant was in actual possession and would lose the benefit of occupation and any surrender value. The Court compared the respective incidents of both interests, including the limited transferability of the tenant's right, the landlord's inability to obtain open-market value subject to occupancy rights, and the absence of definite evidence showing a different proportion. The earlier decisions were treated as supporting a rough method of estimation rather than a rigid rule of law.

Conclusion: In the absence of definite evidence, the interests of the landlord and the occupancy tenant may be presumed to stand in the ratio of 10 to 6, subject to rebuttal by other considerations or circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: Where acquired land has special building potential and no specific evidence is available, compensation may be apportioned between landlord and occupancy tenant on a rebuttable rough-and-ready estimate of their respective interests, rather than on a fixed rule of law.

---