PISHORI LAL Vs. HUKAMA ALIAS HUKAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has arisen out of a suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent claiming possession of the land in dispute as having superior right of pre-emption in his capacity as a tenant of the land under the vendor from the date of the sale.

(2.) On 24th December, 1965, the land in dispute, measuring 516 Kanals 10 Marlas, was sold by its owner Kharaiti Lal to the vendees, Pishori Lal, Tarsem Lal and Parkash Lal. On 24th February, 1966. Hukama, claiming to be a tenant under the vendor, filed the aforesaid suit. The trial Court granted a decree on 20th January, 1969, which was reversed by the lower appellate Court in appeal on 26th July, 1969. The learned Single Judge, in regular second appeal reversed the order of the lower appellate Court and restored that of the trial Court on 25th August, 1970, and hence this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent.

(3.) The entire controversy before the learned Single Judge and in the Courts below was about the interpretation of the entries in the revenue record in which it was assumed that he was recorded as a tenant-at-will in the column of possession, while in the column of rent, the entry was "BILA LAGAN BAWAJA TARNE MAMLA", i.e., without payment of rent on account of payment of land revenue. The trial Court felt that these entries showed that Hukma was a tenant. The lower appellate Court took the view that Hukma was in possession and as is the usual routine with the revenue authorities whenever any person is in possession without any particular right, he is recorded as a tenant-at-will and that the real entry, which would indicate whether the person concerned is in possession as a tenant or otherwise, would be in the column of 'rent' and inasmuch as it is clearly mentioned in the column of 'rent' that he is not paying any rent, he does not fall within the definition of 'tenant' as given in the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, which would be the definition for the purpose of Pre-emption Act, which gives superior right to a tenant under the vendor. The learned Single Judge, however, taking all the entries into consideration, came to the conclusion that because most of the land was banjar and the income, therefrom may not be equal to the land-revenue, therefore, even payment of the land-revenue would be sufficient to make the person in possession a tenant.