The pre-emption suit brought by the respondent No. 1 Muhammad Din for possession under M. L. R.
115 on grounds of tenancy was dismissed by the learned A. C. /Collector, Sheikhupura on ground that Muhammad Din though proved in occupation as cultivator but was recorded as "Na-Jaiz- Qabiz" in the revenue record. The matter was then agitated by the respondent /pre-emptor Muhammad Din in appeal which was accepted and the suit decreed in his favour, vide judgment decree, dated 29-6-1982, now assailed through this revision. It was held by the learned Additional Commissoner (Revenue), Lahore that the respondent /pre-emptor Muhammad Din had been in continuous cultivating possession of the suit land since 1968 and, as such, possessed of the pre- emption rights.
2.Respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have failed to put up appearance despite substituted service by proclamation in the newspapers. They were, therefore, ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.
3.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No. 1.
The point at issue is as to whether a person recorded as "Na-Jaiz Qabiz" in the Register Girdawari and the revenue record would qualify as a tenant for the purpose of pre-emption claim under M . L.
R .
115. On this issue, I would held that it is not description of a tenant, recorded by a Patwari, but the actual character of the tenancy which determines as to whether or not pre-emption rights can be claimed under M.L.R.
115. In the instant case the respondent Muhammad Din though recorded as "Na-Jaiz Qabiz" by the Patwari had all the characteristics of the tenant, in as far as he was cultivating the land and according to his unrebutted statement paying the rent to the owners. It has, therefore, to be hold that the respondent was, in fact. a tenant within the meaning of M.L.R. 115 and was vested with the rights of pre-emption. I would, accordingly uphold the decree in his favour and reject this revision.