1)since land is being acquired for public purpose chances of acquisition being set aside are remote 2) amount of compensation awarded would be apportioned between the landlord and tenant . 3) Indraprastha Ice and Cold Storage Ltd., New Delhi v. Union of India, AIR 1987 Delhi 171. was a case where the acquired land was under lease for a period of 40 years i.e. after every 10 years, right of renewal on enhanced rent was provided for. In such circumstances, it was stated that the owner could not be said to have intended to give up his right. The acquisition in that case was of open land and the remaining portion of the land was at the disposal of the lessee. In such circumstances, apportionment of compensation in the ratio of 7: 1 between the owner and the tenant was considered justified. It may further be noticed that in that case the landlord had not applied for enhancement of the compensation but the tenant had. The Delhi High Court enhanced the rate of compensation and gave benefit of the Amending Act of 1984 and apportioned the compensation as stated above. It was observed as under (at p. 172 of AIR) :-- "Now, the question arises how the compensation of this acquired land is to be apportioned between the owner and the tenant or lessee. If we feel that the tenant is a kind of permanent fixture then perhaps he can get more compensation but if we treat him as a transitory property then a very small pro-port ion of the compensation has to be paid to the lessee. The actual proportion will depend on the nature of the right of the lessee tenant." It was further held as under fat p. 173 of AIR):-- "Furthermore, if we treat the case as one covered by the Rent Control Act, then we have a further difficulty in assessing the compensation payable to the tenant. By definition, a protected tenancy under the Rent Control Act prohibits the creation of transfer of sub-lease. So, the interest of a person protected by the Rent Control Act is not marketable, being not saleable, i.e. non-transferable and non-assignable. So, though the protection to the tenant makes the right a safe one, it also prevents a legal transfer giving rise to a market value. This is the result of the prohibition contained in S. 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act. If there is any assignment, transfer or creation of small interest the tenancy is liable to be determined and protection under the Act is withdrawn. Therefore, there is no market value. On the other hand, if we treat interest of the appellant as one under the lease then it will continue for a maximum 32 years which remained at the time of acquisition and allowing for the maximum increase being permitted at the increased rent. Even the period of 32 years is a very short one compared to the perpetual lease. Therefore, it follows that a very small proportion of the compensation can be paid to the tenant and the major portion had to be paid to the owner. Another important aspect of this particular case is that the factory and the other land have remained intact even after the removal of the area taken under acquisition. We feel that in the circumstances the amount determined is payable to the tenant lessee and the remaining to the owner seems a fair one and we have not been able to find any superior ratio or other reasoning which would help us to give a different ratio."