' This revision is filed against the judgment/decree of the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Rawalpindi, dated 7-7-1981, whereby the preemption decree under M.L.R. 115 on the basis of superior rights of tenancy awarded by the A.C./Collector, Talagang in favour of respondent, Fateh Sher was upheld in appeal.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learn counsel for the petitioner contends in his arguments that the tower Courts have misread the evidence on the issue of estoppel in as far as that to pre-emptor was a party to the bargain. I have considered the arguments of the parties on this issue. Apart from the fact that there were con tradictory opinions by the Finger Print l3ureau as to whether or not Fateh Sher had affixed his thumb-impression on document Exh. D-1, the possible fact of his being party to the sale does not by itself constitute estoppel within the meaning of M.L.R.
115. To establish waiver in preemption suits based on rights of tenancy, it is to be clearly established that the sate offered to the tenant was refused. There was no evidence of this nature. Before the trial Court. I would, therefore, agree with the learned Additional Commissioner that the pre- emption suit could not be defeated on ground of waiver. In view of these findings, the revision fiats and is rejected.
Revision rejected.