JUDGMENT Gopi Nath, J. - These two second appeals arise out of proceedings under Section 6 of the U.P. (Temporary) Accommodation Requisition Act (No. XXV of 1947) hereinafter called as the Act. The claimants who are the owners are the appellants. Bungalow No. 16/14, Civil Lines, Kanpur, was requisitioned by the District Magistrate, under Section 3 of the Act. Four persons, viz. Jagannath Bagla, his wife Smt. Ratni Devi Bagla, his son Sri Ashok Kumar Bagla and Sri Mohan Lal Bagla had purchased this property in an auction sale on 17-2-1952. The property had been a tenanted accommodation throughout. It fetched a rent of Rs. 100/- per month during the period 1938-43. During 1943-48 its rent was Rs. 190/- p.m. From 1948-53 a rent of Rs. 200/- p.m. was paid by the Senior Superintendent of Police, who occupied it as a tenant. The landlords never made any complaint that the rent received was inadequate. From 1953-58 the building was again occupied by another Superintendent of police who also paid the same rent of Rs. 200/-. The landlords again accepted it as the fair rent of the property. The annual reasonable rent of the premises under the U.P. (Temporary) control of Rent and Eviction Act was Rs. 125/- p.m. The appellants case never was that the property had been let out on a concessional rent. The court below thus rightly came to the conclusion that Rs. 200/- p.m. was the fair and reasonable rent of the property which had been bona fide agreed upon between the parties during the relevant period. 2. As observed earlier the property was requisitioned by the District Magistrate in the year 1958 and he offered compensation to the appellant at the rate of Rs. 225/- p.m. This offer was turned down by the appellant and a reference was made under Section 6 of the Requisition Act. The appellants were the claimants in the proceedings and they laid their claim at a sum of Rs. 2500/- p.m. on the allegation that the property was worth Rs. five lacs and the fair return of the property was the amount claimed on its potentialities. The State on the other hand pressed that the fair rent of the property being only Rs. 200/- p.m., the offer of Rs. 225/. p.m. was just and reasonable and was a fair compensation. five lacs and the fair return of the property was the amount claimed on its potentialities. The State on the other hand pressed that the fair rent of the property being only Rs. 200/- p.m., the offer of Rs. 225/. p.m. was just and reasonable and was a fair compensation. Section 6 of the Act deals with compensation payable for requisition under the Act. Sub-Sec. (2) of Section 6 provides as under : "6. .... . . . (2) The Court in deciding the reference shall have regard to the provisions of sub-Sec. (1) of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in so far as the same may be applicable and also the reasonable expenses, if any, incurred in vacating the accommodation and shall as far as possible follow the procedure applicable to suits under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The decision of the Court shall have the force of a decree." 3. The question for determination before the court below was as to the amount of compensation payable for the premises which was a tenanted accommodation fetching a rent around Rs. 200/- for the last 15 years and over. 4. The trial court held that the property was of a value of Rs. 1,12000 and its rental value was Rs. 2400/- per year in 1958. It further found that the claimants would have received interest at the rate of 5% per annum if the amount was invested in securities. The fair return by investment would have been Rs. 5,600 per annum. The court accordingly drew a mean between the return received by way of rent and the estimated return expected by investment otherwise. It fixed the compensation at Rs. 4000/- per year. 5. On appeal the lower appellate court affirmed the decree on the findings that the compensation to be awarded under Section 6 of the Act was to be determined with reference to the rent received from the property. Since the rent in the instant case was around Rs. 200/- under a bona fide agreement between the parties the compensation was rightly fixed at Rs. 4,000/- per year having regard to the rent received and the return expected by investment of the amount of Rs. 1,12,000/- in banks or securities. Since the rent in the instant case was around Rs. 200/- under a bona fide agreement between the parties the compensation was rightly fixed at Rs. 4,000/- per year having regard to the rent received and the return expected by investment of the amount of Rs. 1,12,000/- in banks or securities. While reaching this conclusion the Court below held that the reasonable rent of buildings under the Rent Control legislations could be taken into account in determining the compensation. He, however, found that the compensation awarded in the instant case was not restricted to the reasonable rent under the U.P. ((Temp.) Control of Rent and Eviction Act. The learned Judge observed as follows :- "It would thus be clear that according to the legal position, the criterion for awarding compensation in the case of requisition of possessory rights, is the rent at which property is bona fide let out. In this case the reasonable rent of the building comes to Rs. 125/- p.m. Even if the provisions of Section 6 of Act III of 1947 are also taken into consideration, the appellants would not gain anything because they did not adduce an-iota of evidence about the rent at which the building could be let out in 1958. No evidence of prevailing rent for similar accommodation in the locality, the cost of maintenance, repair of such accommodation and any material circumstance was given. The instances of distant localities could not furnish adequate exemplar for the building inside. The basis of return on capitalised value cannot be applied to the facts of this case when the building has been let out from 1943 in a bona fide manner and has been fetching adequate rent. Taking into consideration all these facts and circumstances, I am in judgment that the amount of compensation (i.e. Rs. 4000/- p.a.) awarded by the learned lower court is just and fair and cannot be disturbed." Aggrieved, the claimants have come up in second appeal, and challenged the decree on the ground that the compensation has not been fixed on correct principles. The complaint is that rent legislations cannot limit the compensation in respect of tenanted accommodations to reasonable rent only. The complaint is that rent legislations cannot limit the compensation in respect of tenanted accommodations to reasonable rent only. It was urged that since Section 6 of the Act provides for assessment of compensation in the same manner as in land acquisition proceedings under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, the compensation cannot be restricted to the rent fetched by buildings. It was submitted that on requisition no relationship of landlord and tenant is created between the State and the owner of the property and the compensation cannot depend upon that relationship. Attention was invited to the following cases :- Ten Bug Taim v. Collector of Bombay, AIR 1946 Bom. 216, Governor General in Council v. Indar Mani Jattia, AIR 1950 (East) Punjab 296, Lalit Kumar v. Bhagaban Ch. Sharma, AIR 1950 Assam 133, Haji Mohammad Ekramul Haque v. Province of Bengal through the Land Acquisition Collector, AIR 1950 Cal. 83 , The Union of India v. Ram Prashad, AIR 1952 Punjab 116 and Union of India v. Sh. Roshal Lal Gupta, AIR 1961 Punjab 128. 6. Reliance was also placed on Haji Mohammad Ekramul Haq v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1959 SC 488 where it was held that while assessing compensation potentialities of the property had to be taken into account and compensation fixed accordingly. 7. It is true that on requisition no relationship of landlord and tenant is created between the acquiring authorities and the owner. By requisition the possessory rights of an owner are acquired for a particular period with a view to completely dealing with the property during the time of requisition. Reference may be made to the provisions of Section 75 of the Defence of India Act also in this connection. The act of requisition is performed in exercise of the power of eminent domain and is a sovereign act. It is not a transfer of interest under a lease either by contract or under statute or by estoppel. The reasonable rent under the rent legislations thus cannot limit the determination of compensation in respect of requisitioned property. A fair rent even though in excess of the one under the rent legislation can be taken into account in assessing the compensation. The reasonable rent under the rent legislations thus cannot limit the determination of compensation in respect of requisitioned property. A fair rent even though in excess of the one under the rent legislation can be taken into account in assessing the compensation. In Governor General-in-Council v. Jesraj Tilakchand Labhchand, AIR 1950 Assam 83, it was held : "Where only possession is requisitioned, compensation has to be assessed on the basis of fair market value for such interest. Fair rent must be notional fair rent of hypothetical tenant. Any restrictive executive order or Rent Control Order cannot be considered in assessing fair rent." 8. In Collector of Darjeeling v. C. Mackertich, AIR 1951 Cal. 307 , it was observed : "....... Ordinarily, rent which is being paid in respect of certain premises at any point of time may be regarded as the fair rent payable therefor. Where fair rent has been fixed under the Rent Control Order the Court would not be justified in proceeding on the basis that the premises might fetch higher rent after structural alterations therein by laying out money." 9. In Dullab v. Vallab Ganpat, AIR 1954 Bom. 322 , it was held that "when the Government do not acquire the entire interest of the owner in the premises by requisition but merely acquire the right of user for an indefinite period, the ownership of premises is not affected thereby. In the very nature of things, the compensation to be awarded to the owner in those circumstances is not the value of the property but the value of the user to which he is entitled and of which he is under the authority of law expropriated .... A monthly tenancy protected by the normal rent restriction statute is the nearest equivalent to it and the rent that such a monthly tenant may pay affords a fairly accurate basis for ascertaining the periodical compensation to be rendered." In S.S. Nirmal Chand Ratanchand v. Collector, Jabalpur, 1962 MP LJ 109, it was observed : "In determining the market value of the possessory interest in the property requisitioned the prevailing rent level must be taken into consideration . . In Province of West Bengal v. Raja Jhargram, AIR 1955 Cal. 392 , it was held that the basis of compensation is the amount of fair-rent." 10. . In Province of West Bengal v. Raja Jhargram, AIR 1955 Cal. 392 , it was held that the basis of compensation is the amount of fair-rent." 10. In the instant case since the compensation has not been confined to the reasonable rent alone but has been determined on the basis of fair rent and the potential value of the property, the assessment needs no interference. The learned Judge has in great detail ; considered the fair return of the property. The maximum rent it fetched was Rs. 200/. p.m. The landlord never questioned the fairness or reasonableness of it. The leases were executed in good faith. The appellant adduced no evidence that the property could fetch a better rent. The rental value of the property was thus Rs. 200/- p.m. at the time of requisition. The compensation awarded was at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per annum. 11. The appellants knowingly invested their money in the property and did not invest it in securities or Bank , Deposits. The market value of the property was thus relevant for the purposes of compensation and not the supposed investment in securities. The rental value was Rs. 2400/- per annum. In view of the fluctuating conditions of bank deposits if the appellants considered it wise to invest their money in house property the yield by way of rent was a safe guide in determining the amount of compensation It was urged that compensation had to be the just equivalent of the value of the property. The market value of rented buildings under the Land Acquisition Act is also determined with reference to fair rent. In determining the compensation in the instant case consideration has been made to return from investment in securities as well. Fair rent and interest from securities, both have been taken into account. The award is fair and reasonable. 12. The appeals fail and are dismissed with costs.