Lease renewal clauses contingent on future agreement cannot govern apportionment; land compensation must reflect comparable sales and development factors.

A purported lease that could not operate as a valid long-term grant was treated, after acceptance of rent, as creating a landlord-tenant relationship under general law. The renewal clause was unenforceable for apportionment because it depended on future agreement and did not fix definitive terms, so the apportionment proceeded without giving that clause effect. In assessing compensation for acquired land, market value was to be judged by what a willing purchaser would pay, with reference to comparable sales, locality development, and deductions for roads, drains, and development costs. On that approach, the compensation assessment was not shown to be unreasonable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the renewal clause in the lease deed could be given effect while apportioning compensation between the appellant and the Corporation, and what was the character of the tenancy that arose after acceptance of rent; (ii) Whether the compensation fixed for the acquired land was erroneous for not adequately taking into account its potential value.

Issue (i): Whether the renewal clause in the lease deed could be given effect while apportioning compensation between the appellant and the Corporation, and what was the character of the tenancy that arose after acceptance of rent.

Analysis: The lease deed was treated as ineffective for conveying a valid leasehold interest, but acceptance of rent brought the relationship of landlord and tenant into existence. Since the grant could not operate as a valid lease for thirty years, the term of the tenancy had to be determined under the general law. A renewal clause leaving all terms and conditions to future agreement was not capable of being enforced for apportionment purposes. In the circumstances, the tenancy could only be treated as a monthly tenancy under the general rule governing such property.

Conclusion: The renewal clause was not effective for apportionment, and the apportionment made without giving it effect was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the compensation fixed for the acquired land was erroneous for not adequately taking into account its potential value.

Analysis: The value of acquired land is to be assessed with reference to what a willing purchaser would reasonably pay, taking into account comparable sales and surrounding development. The land was valued on the basis of sales of similar plots in the locality, with allowance made for roads, drains, and development costs. On that material, the rate adopted by the Additional District Judge was not shown to be unreasonable, even if it was on the generous side.

Conclusion: The compensation awarded was not erroneous and required no interference.

Final Conclusion: The appeals did not succeed, and the award and apportionment were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a purported lease is ineffective, a renewal clause depending on future agreement cannot be enforced for apportionment, and compensation for acquisition must be assessed on comparable sales and surrounding development factors.

---