MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-Abaad Ali and another purchased land. Mutation in respect of it was entered at No. 274 on 28th June, 1973. The sale consideration was a sum of Rs. 9,500. Muhammad Din, respondent, pre-empted the sale and his suit was decreed. An appeal was filed against this in which the sole question for determination was as to which one of it had the superior right to purchase that land. This appeal was dismis--sed. This led to a second appeal before the High Court where the question of limitation was not raised. Muhammad Din's case is that he is a tenant and is, therefore, entitled to pre-empt the sale under the provisions of Martial Law Regulation No.
115. A learned Single Judge of the High Court came to the conclusion that the present petitioners were able to prove by oral evidence only that they were lessees in respect to the fruit of the garden and had also been cultivating crops in the land under the garden. Under Martial Law Regulation 115 the definition of the term `tenant' appearing in the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act has been adopted. This is an admitted position. The liability to pay rent is the main condition for becoming a tenant. No evidence was led in the present case to show that there was any liability to pay the rent.
There was therefore, no proof that the petitioners were the tenants. Not being tenants as visualized by the Martial Law Regulation No. 115 they cannot 61 take advantage of its provisions which give the right of pre-emption to a tenant. The stand of the petitioners is not borne out by the revenue re-- cord. They, however, want that the oral testimony of D. W. 1 and D. W. 2 should be accepted as enough for disproving the presumption attached to the revenue record. We cannot do that. The testimony of these two witnesses referred to above is not, in any way, enough for undoing the presumption attached to the revenue record. No other point is raised. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.