' The pre-emption suit filed by Muhammad Ashraf respondent under M. L. R. 115 on ground of superior rights of. Tenancy was decreed in his favour by the A.C./Collector,. Sadar Lahore. The judgment/decree of the A.C./Collector was maintained in appeal by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore, vide orders, dated 17-12-1980, now assailed through this revision.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts of the case. The sale of the suit land was made through a registered deed, dated 21-11-1975 and the pre-emption suit filed on 11-12-1975. In the plaint filed by Muhammad Ashraf it was contended that he was holding the suit land as tenant since 1972, which was then leased to him for a period of five years with effect from May, 1972 through a formal agreement. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that on the date of transaction and also on the date of filing the suit, the respondent was a lessee by his own averment. He could not therefore, have styled himself as tenant for the . Purpose of claiming pre-emption under M. L. R.
115. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties on this issue, I would hold that the rights as tenant do not vest in a lease-holder. A lease-holder during the currency of the lease substitutes as owner with rights of sub-leasing the lease and/or employing tenants, whereas the tenant for the purpose of M.L.R. 115 is the one who actually tills the land. The intention of M. L. R. 15 was to give right of pre-emption to the tenants, from the definition of which the lessees were specifically excluded by later amendment. It has been held by the Karachi High Court (PLD 1975 Kar. 202 and PLD 1977 Kar. 825) that a lessee is not a tenant for the purpose of M. L. R.
115. Since in this case the respondent Muhammad Ashraf had admitted to the status of lessee in his own plaint, be was estoppel from contesting the suit as a tenant. I would therefore, hold that the respondent was a lessee and as such had no claim for pre-emption under M. L. R.
115. On the basis of this finding, I would accept the revision and set aside the judgment/decree of the lower Courts.