MEHROTRA, C. J.: This is an appeal by the plaintiff arising out of a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 25, 563/9/-comprising of a sum of Rs. 22, 105/9/- as arrears of rent for the period commencing from 1st April 1952 to 7th September 1955 and a sum of Rs. 3,457/12/- as interest on the aforesaid amount. It is not disputed that the land belonged to the ap­pellant. The land was utilised by the plaintiff company for the purposes of its railway which was known as Dibru Sadiya Railway, one of the con­cerns of the plaintiff. Dibru-Sadiya Railway was taken over by the Government of India in the year 1945. But the plaintiff continued to be the owner of this land. The land was then taken pos­session of by the Bengal Assam Railway administra­tion and was used by the said Railway with effect from 1st April 1945. It was then taken over by the North Eastern Railway which has been impleaded as defendant No. 2 to the suit. Defendant No. i is the Union of India. The Bengal Assam Railway was reconstituted and was named as As­sam Railway. The Assam Railway administration was in the hands of the Union Government. The plaintiff agreed to accept the sum of Rs. 6,433-6-0 as rent per annum in respect of the land in dis­pute. After the reconstitution of the Assam Rail­way and the other Railways in India, this area formed part of the newly constituted North Eastern Railway. The rent was paid up to the 24th Novem­ber 1951 by the defendant the North Eastern, Railway. But after the 24th November, 1951 in spite of the demand no rent has been paid by the defendant. (2) It is not disputed by the defendants that they are the successors of the Bengal Assam Railway and that they are tenants in respect of this land for the period for which the rent has been claimed. The case of the defendants is that on the 24th November 1951 a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act indicating that the land was sought to be acquired for the purposes of the Railway. The proceedings went on till on the 7th September 1955 an award was given under which the plaintiff was awarded some compensation. The plainti0 has thus claimed his arrears of rent from the 1st April 1952 till 7th, September 1955. The proceedings went on till on the 7th September 1955 an award was given under which the plaintiff was awarded some compensation. The plainti0 has thus claimed his arrears of rent from the 1st April 1952 till 7th, September 1955. The defence taken was that as this amount could have been claimed by the plain­tiff as a part of the compensation for the acquisi­tion of the land, the plaintiff is not entitled to bring any suit for the recovery of the aforesaid amount as arrears of rent. (3) As I have already pointed out, the owner­ship of the plaintiff is not denied. It is not also denied that there was relationship of the landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defen­dants. The point taken by the defendants mainly is that because of the land acquisition proceedings the amount could be claimed by the plaintiff as part of the compensation and no suit will lie for the recovery of the aforesaid amount. (4) The trial Court dismissed the suit. The reasoning of the trial Court in our opinion is" erroneous. The trial Court has held that because the proceedings commenced from the date of the issue of the notice under Section 4, the Govern­ment intended to acquire the land with effect from the 24th November 1951. It is further held by the Court below that as the proceedings commenced with effect from the 24th November 1951, this amount could have been claimed by the plaintiff as a part of the compensation in the land acquisi­tion proceeding itself and no separate suit will lie. In our opinion there is no substance in any of these contentions made by the defendant. (5) The notice under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter called 'the Act') does not by itself vest the property in the Government. It only gives an indication that the Government proposes to acquire the land for a public purpose. After this notice under S. 4, declaration under Section 6 is issued after the Government has in­vestigated whether the land was actually required for public purpose under Section 5-A of the Act. Then the award is given. Section 16 of the Act provides that when the Collector has made an award under Section n, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. Then the award is given. Section 16 of the Act provides that when the Collector has made an award under Section n, he may take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances. This section is clear and it only lays down that after the Collector had taken possession, when the award has been made under Section n, the pro­perty will vest in the Government free from all encumbrances. Before this not only the property cannot vest in the Government but before the award is given the Government is not entitled to take possession of the property. Section 17 is only an exception where under in certain circumstances the Government can take immediate possession as soon as the notice is given under section. In that event the provisions of Section 5-A will not be attracted. Section 17 (i) of the Act provides: "In cases of urgency, whenever the appropriate Government so directs, the Collector, .though no. such award has been made, may, on the expiration of fifteen days from the publication of the notice mentioned in Section g} sub-section (i), take posses­sion of any waste or arable land needed for public purposes or for a company. Such land shall there­upon vest absolutely in the Government, free from all encumbrances." Even under Section 17(1) the property vests after the possession has been taken by the Government in the circumstances mentioned under Section 17(1). Possession under this section will also be taken after the publication of the notice under Section 9 of the Act. Thus the only contingency provided for taking possession before the award is one speci­fied in Section 17 of the Act and in no case the property can vest before the possession has been given - either after giving of the award as pro­vided for under Section 16 or earlier as provided for under Section 17. The legislature nowhere has enacted that the taking of possession itself will amount to the vesting of the property in the Gov­ernment. On taking possession only under the two circumstances mentioned in Sections 16 and 17 the property can vest in the Government. (6) Mr. The legislature nowhere has enacted that the taking of possession itself will amount to the vesting of the property in the Gov­ernment. On taking possession only under the two circumstances mentioned in Sections 16 and 17 the property can vest in the Government. (6) Mr. Das appearing on behalf of the respon­dents has contended that though no possession was taken under Section 17 or under Section 16 of the Act after the award was given, still because in fact possession was taken by the Government, the property must be deemed to vest in the Govern­ment. We do not think that there is any force in this contention. Legally the property remains the property of the owner till it vests by virtue of Section 16 or Section 17 of the Act in the Government and till the property vests in the Gov­ernment either under Section 16 or Section 17, the relationship of landlord and tenant subsisted bet­ween the defendants and the plaintiff. The taking of the possession by the defendants would not change the relationship of landlord and tenant merely because the defendants were in possession as tenants. It cannot be said that the possession had been taken by the defendants as owners from the date when the notice was issued and the rela­tionship of tenant and landlord between the parties ceased. If the relationship of tenant and landlord continued till the 7th September 1955, then the plaintiff is clearly entitled to get a decree for arrears of rent. (7) As to the argument advanced by the counsel for the respondents that the plaintiff could have claimed the amount as a part of the compensation, we do not think that there is any force in this con­tention. Section 23 of the Act enumerates the factors which are to be taken into consideration in determining the amount of compensation. The plaintiff was only entitled to the market value of the land on the date of the notification. The legislature under Section 23 has allowed for the purposes of compensation the market value of the property on the date of the notification. The plaintiff was only entitled to the market value of the land on the date of the notification. The legislature under Section 23 has allowed for the purposes of compensation the market value of the property on the date of the notification. But this does not mean that the plaintiff is entitled to get the arrears of rent which the tenant has not said to him for this period as a part of the market value of the property on the date of the notification nor does this section exclude the right of the landlord to get arrears of rent from the defen­dant. Thus if a tenant during the period of the proceedings under the Act did not pay the arrear rent, the amount could not have been claimed as compensation by the plaintiff. It is an arrear of rent which the plaintiff was entitled to get from the defendants for the period of the tenancy. Our attention has been drawn to paragraph 19 of the written statement in which it is stated by the defendants that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover Rs. 22,105/- on account of rent and in­terest of Rs. 3,457-12-0 or any amount for the period claimed in view of the fact that the land was finally acquired for public purposes and award made by the Collector giving full compensation of Rs. 70,460-8-0 including the price of the land at the market price prevailing on the date of notifica­tion made under Section 4 of the Land Acquisi­tion Act. This also shows that the sum of Rs. 70,460-8-0 the amount of compensation which the plaintiff was entitled to get under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act was the market value of the property on the date of the notice. There; is no mention in paragraph 19 that this sum of Rs. 70,460-8-0 included the arrears of rent which were due to the plaintiff from the defendants. It is not the case of the defendants that after the notice had been issued, the plaintiff was not entitled to get any arrears of rent from the defendants though the award may be given later on. There is no justification for this contention as the pro­perty does not vest in the defendants before the actual award was given. It is not the case of the defendants that after the notice had been issued, the plaintiff was not entitled to get any arrears of rent from the defendants though the award may be given later on. There is no justification for this contention as the pro­perty does not vest in the defendants before the actual award was given. In the result, therefore, this appeal is allowed, the decree of the Court below is set aside and the suit of the plaintiff stands decreed with costs throughout. (8) The amount will be paid by the defen­dants within four months from today. Appeal allowed.