JUDGMENT Sathiadev, J. 1. First claimant in O.P.-No. 9/79 on the file of the Sub Court, Mayuram, is the appellant. Second claimant in the first respondent and petitioner therein is the second respondent herein. On the learned Judge holding that second claimant-tenant is entitled to one-fourth share in the enhanced compensation granted by Sub-Court, this appeal is preferred. 2. On a reference at the instance of the first claimant under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Sub-Court held that the proper compensation payable for the lands could be Rs. 125 instead of Rs. 10.50 per cent fixed by Land Acquisition Officer in the award proceedings. First claimant had claimed a sum of Rs. 200 per cent. The extent involved is 68 cents of wet lands in R.S. No. 74/2 in Vilanthidasamuthiram Village, which was acquired for the purpose of putting up a school building. The Sub Court has pointed out that admittedly the second claimant is the cultivating tenant of the entire acquired land for a period of 13 years and treated him as a statutory tenant. 3. Mr. Kumar, learned Counsel for the first claimant appellant, submits that the tenancy being annual, it had not resulted in any interest being created in the lands in favour of the second claimant, and therefore, he would not be a "person interested" as defined in Section 3(b) of the Act. It is too late in the day to claim that a statutory tenant would not have any right to claim a share in the compensation awarded in a land acquisition proceeding in and by which his right to continue as a cultivating tenant had been deprived of. A Division Bench of this Court in Durairajan v. Sri Kasi Viswanathaswamy Temple, held that a tenant would be entitled to a share in the compensation awarded in land acquisition proceedings. Therefore, the concurrent finding arrived at that the second claimant is entitled to a share in the compensation amount cannot be interfered with. 4. The next contention that, when the second claimant had not asked for any reforming under Section 18, and when the enhanced compensation had been awarded at the instance of the first claimant, anything more than what the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded cannot be paid over to the second claimant. 4. The next contention that, when the second claimant had not asked for any reforming under Section 18, and when the enhanced compensation had been awarded at the instance of the first claimant, anything more than what the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded cannot be paid over to the second claimant. Under Section 18, within the time prescribed therein, any interested person to whom the compensation awarded is not acceptable, will have to move the concerned Court asking for enhanced compensation. If within the time prescribed therein, a claim is not made, the right to ask for enhanced compensation is lost. In claiming compensation, both the owner and the tenant have to put forth their claims in their own rights, in respect of the same property. The right claimed by one is distinct and different from the other. There is conflict of claims between them, and therefore, each of them will have to ask for a reference under Section 18, for enhanced compensation. The right conferred on the one, cannot be availed of by the other. One does not represent the other. It is indisputable that it is only the first claimant, who had asked for a reference under Section 18. Further conduct of the second claimant is quite clear from what he had done before the Land Acquisition Officer, when he determined the compensation at Rs. 8,339.80. On 16.4.1979 he filed a counter statement stating that out of the said amount, he is entitled to one third and the said amount may be paid over to him, he being a cultivating tenant. Therefore on the award passed on 16.11.1978, and on receipt of notice, having filed such a statement on 16.4.1979 without asking a reservation of his right to ask for enhanced compensation or disputing the correct determination of the compensation, and having accepted payment, he cannot now take advantage of what the first claimant had done, and ask for enhanced compensation. 5. Mr. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the second claimant relies upon the decision in State of Madras v. Raman Pillai, and it was a case about a mortgage made by co-mortgagor wherein one can represent the other. Whereas between the owner and the tenant there is no question of one representing the other, in claiming his independent rights. 6. 5. Mr. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the second claimant relies upon the decision in State of Madras v. Raman Pillai, and it was a case about a mortgage made by co-mortgagor wherein one can represent the other. Whereas between the owner and the tenant there is no question of one representing the other, in claiming his independent rights. 6. A learned single Judge of this Court in Alamelu Ammal v. State of Madras , took the view that in a case where enhanced compensation was awarded at the instance of a person who had no interest in the land; so long as the enhanced compensation stood, it would be payable to whomsoever was interested in the land. As pointed out above, both owner of the property and the tenant are interested persons in their own rights, independent of each other. Hence, when the second claimant has chosen to accept the compensation amount as awarded by the acquisition officer and having not asked for reference under Section 18 in respect of his rights, he cannot avail of the benefits of the award of enhanced compensation made by the Sub Court at the instance of first claimant. Hence, the one-fourth of the amount viz., Rs. 9,330.80 alone would be payable to the second claimant with solatium, interest etc., as awarded. 7. In so far as the first claimant is concerned, the enhanced compensation can be confined only to the three fourth share and no more. The enhanced compensation relating to one-fourth share of the second claimant which would have become payable if he had asked for a reference under Section 18, cannot be paid over to the first claimant. 8. It is then stated that the tenant, second claimant is in arrears of Rs. 1,725 but before the Land Acquisition Officer, the first claimant did not make any representation and none appeared and therefore, no directive could be given for any adjustment to be made. It is left to the first claimant to institute such appropriate proceedings as are available in law for recovery of alleged arrears of lease amount. 9. Hence this appeal is allowed by holding that the second claimant would not be entitled to any share in the enhanced compensation and could claim only the compensation awarded to him by the Land Acquisition Officer. No costs.