1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.-It has, inter alia, been argued that the respondent in order to prove his preferential right of pre-emption relied only upon the school leaving certificate which too was tendered in evidence by his counsel. Neither the respondent nor any body on his behalf appeared in the witness-box to support this claim. The learned Judge in the High Court relied only A upon the averment made by the respondent in his plaint that he was the son of the vendor but the same was controverted by the petitioners herein, in their written statement. Hence the finding of the Courts below that the respondent had established his preferential right was based on no evidence.
2. ' Leave is, accordingly, granted.
3. ' Security for costs of the respondent shall be furnished in the sum of Rs, 1,00,.
4. As regards the question of stay we observe that a learned Single Judge had passed an order in Chambers on 20-11-1982 allowing stay to the petitioners, subject to their paying Rs, 6,000 to the respondent within fifteen days by cash or money order as compensation for use and occupation for one year (in 1982 January to December, 1982). It was further directed that if the matter remains pending beyond a year this direction shall be deemed to be repeated on expiry of every year. The learned counsel states that the stay was granted on onerous terms since the profits of the land in dispute do not exceed more than about rupees three thousand per year. He wishes the stay to be extended on payment of Rs, 3,000 per year as compensation for use and occupation during the pendency of the appeal.
5. ' Let the Tehsildar of the area, in which the property is located, hear the parties on this question and submit a report, as to the proper amount that should be fixed for compensation for use and occupation of the land in dispute, to this Court within three months after making necessary inquiry into the matter.