NESARGI, J.

(1) THIS appeal is under S. 11 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of immovable Property Act 1952. The appellant was the claimant before the arbitrator. The appellants property known as cubbon House in Cubbon road, Bangalore, was requisitioned by the Central Govt in order to house the All India Radio station. An amount of Rs. 500 per month was offered as compensation to the appellant, but the appellant did not agree that it was the proper compensation. He contended that he was toi receive Rs. 600. per month as compensation. In view of this dispute an Arbitrator was appointed as per the provisions of S. 8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952, (here in after referred to as the Act). When the master was taken up by the Arbitrator the claimant gave his assessment of compensation at Rs. 600 per month from 8-7-1954 to 31-3-1961 at Rs. 1,500 per month from 3-4-1961 to 1-4-1965 and at Rs. 2,500 per month from 1-4-1965 to 31-3-1971. He, in support of his assessment relied mainly on the ground that the Corporation authqritieis of Bangalore had fixed the annual letting value on the basis of Rs. 1,500 per mensem from 1-4-1961 and it is common knowledge that rents for buildings in Bangalore and especially in that locality had gone on rising during different periods. It was contended on behalf of the Central Govt that the amount of Rs. 500 per month offered by it was the proper assessment of compensation the appellant claimant was entitled to.

(2) THE learned Arbitrator held that the appellant-claimant could not claim compensation at a ratq higher than Rs. 600 per month, which he had claimed at least upto 1-4-1961. He further held that the provisions of the act did not permit the appellant-claimant to claim compensation at an. enhanced rate for the subsequent period namely front 1-4-1961 on wards he on this basis concluded that the amount of compensation that the appellant-claimant was entitled to, was only Rs. 600 per month. It is this award that"is challenged in this appeal.

(3) IN this appeal, the appellant-claimant ha,s restricted his claim of compensation at the rate of Rs. 1,500 per month from 1-4-1861 up-to date. The appellant-claimant has further stated in this appeal that he is satisfied with the Awrd, awarding him compensation at the rate of Rs. 600 p. m from 8-7-1954 to 1-4-1961. It is, therefore, now to be seen whether the appellant-claimant is in law entitled to compensation amount of Rs. 1,300 per month from 1-4-1961 up-to-date.

(4) SRI S. L. Simha, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-claimant, urged that it is common knowledge! that rents of buildings in Bangalore, and in particular in that locality, have go no on rising from year to year and therefore the claim of compensation, at rs. 1,500 p. m. from 1-4-1961 put forward by the appellant-claimant is the proper assessment of compensation and he is entitled to it. He further pointed out that even the Bangalore Cqrporation authorities assessed the annual letting value of the property frqm 1-4-1961 on the basis of Rs. 1,500 per month and that would constitute sufficient material for this Court to hold that the Just and proper assessment of compensatiqn that the claimant is entitled to is Rs. 1,500 p. m. from 1-4-1961. Sri M. Papanna Junior Central govt Standing Counsel for the respondent, urged that the appellant claimant in law, is not permitted to claim different rates of compensation for different periods and his contention that from 1-4-1961 the comperisation should be fixed at Rs. 1,500 p. m. as against Rs. 600 p. m. is nothing but a claim for enhancement of compensation and that cannot be granted. He pointed out that the learned Arbitrator has dealt with the relevant provisions of the Act while considering this aspect and concluded that enhancement of compensation amount was not permitted to be claimed when once it was fixed by an Arbitrator on a reference under S. 8 of the Act. He nextly pointed out that even though the Bangalore Corporation authorities had assessed the annual letting value at Rs. 1,500 p. m. from 1-4-1961, the matter was taken up by the appellant-claimant in revision and the tax was reduced on the basis of actual compensation amount that was being received by the appellant-claimant. He on this basis urged that it would not be open to the appellant-claimant to contend that because the Bangalore Corporation authorities had assessed the annual letting value on the basis of Rs. 1,500 p. m he is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,500 p. m.

(5) TAKING up the contention in regard to the question of enhancement of compensation, it is true that the learned Arbitrator, after scrutinising the provisions of Ss. 8 and 9 of the Act, has held that enhancement of compensation, which had been once fixed, is not permitted under the provisions of the Act. But we are unable to see how such a contention arises under the facts and circumstances of this case. It is undisputed that the property in question was requisitioned on 8-7-1954 and the compensation offered was rs. 500 p. m. and further that the appellant-claimant did not accept that amount and contended that he ought to receive Rs. 600 p. m. It is because of this dispute that an Arbitrator was appointed under S. 8 of the Act and matter dragged on and ultimately the Arbitrator passed the Award in question. Hence it is manifest that a particular amount had never been fixed asjust and proper compensation per month by any Arbitrator at an earlier stage. We do not see how the appellant-claimant is precluded from claiming different rates of compensation for different periods particularly when the period that was under consideration was a past one.

(6) S. 8 (2) (a) of the Act provides that the amount of compensation payable for the requisitioning of any property shall consist of recurring payment, in respect of the period of requisition, of a sum equal to the rent which would have been payable for the use and occupation of the property if it had been taken on lease, for that period. . . . . In view of this, we have no hesitation in holding that the law dqes not preclude the appellant claimant from claiming different amounts of compensation for different periods when such property is requisitioned under the provisions of the act. That is what exactly the appellant has done in this case. Sri Papanna pointed qut that when Rs. 500 was offered to the appellanti claimant as compensation, the appellant-claimant contended that he ought to receive rs. 600 p. m. and it was only when he appeared before the Arbitrator that he put forward his present claim. He, therefore urged that the claim of the appellant claimant before the Arbitratqr cannot be considered as it is not the same as it was when he disputed the offer of Rs. 500 p. m. 8. 8 (1), (d) of the Act reads as follows : s. 8 (l) Where any property is requisitioned or acquired under this Act, there shall be paid compensation the amount of which shall be determined in the manner and in accordance with the principles hereinafter set out, that is to say: (2) At the commencement of the proceedings before the Arbitrator the Central Govt and the person to be compensated shall state what in their respective opinion is a fair amqunt of compensation. This provision itself gives a right to the claimant to state before the Arbitrator at the commencement of the proceedings as to what in his opinion is the fair amqunt of compensation. There is no provision in the Act analogous to S. 25 of the Land Acquisition Act precluding a, claimant from claiming an amount of compensation higher than what he had claimed before the Land Acquisition Officer. It is under these circumstances that the deci sion of this Court in Union of India v. Narasiyappa aptly applies to the facts oi this case. In that case also Ss. 8 and 11 of the very Act were considered and it was held that S. 25 of the Land Acquisition Act which imposes a bar in the way of a claimant asking for anything more than what he had asked for in his statement of claim does not apply to cases falling under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property act 1952. We therefore do not agree with the contention of Sri Papanna.

(7) THE question that remains to be considered is whether the claim of the appellant-claimant that he is entitled to compensation at the rate of rs. 1,500 p. m. from 1-4-1961 uptodate is sustainable. The appellant-claimant and his witnesses have sworn that the rents in Bangalore and particularly in that locality have gone on rising year by year. It is to be observed that it is also a well known fact. It is in evidence, and that part of the evidence is undisputed, that the Bangalore Corporation authorities did assess the annual letting value of the property in question from 1-4-1961 on the basis of Rs. . 1,500 p. m. But the tax fixed by the authorities was of course reduced when the appellant claimant took up the matter in revision because the actual rental that the building was fetching was not Rs. 1,500 p. m. but only Rs,600 p. m. The fact that the tax rssessed by the Corporation authorities on the basis of rental of Rs. 1,500 p. m. , reduced in revision does not mean that the rent of the building in question was something less than Rs. 1,500 p. m. from 1-4-1961. This material is sufficient to establish that the just and proper assessment of compensation of this building is rs. 1,500 p. m. from 1-4-1961 as claimed by the appellant-claimant. Wo are of opinion that he is entitled to the same.

(8) WE, therefore, allow this appeal set aside the Award passed by the learned Arbitrator, in so far as it pertains to the period from 1-4-1961 upto date in case No. LAD 101 of 1970-71 and fix the amount of compensation payable to the appellant Claimant at Rs. 1,500 p. m. for that period. We confirm the Award in regard to the period from 8-7-1954 to 1-4-1961. No order as to costs.