' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The dispute in this petition for special leave to appeal relates to Killas Nos. 4 and 5 of Square No, 42 in Chak No, 10, Gajbani, Tehsil Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar. These Killas were part of the land sold by Muhammad Hussain, brother of the petitioner, in July 1971, jointly to the petitioner and Jan Muhammad, respondent No,
1. At the time of the sale Muhammad Hussain delivered possession to the petitioner and respondent No, 1, of different and separate parcels of the land. Thus, the possession of the disputed Killas was given to respondent No,
1. After the sale the petitioner was shown to be in cultivating possession of the Killas in dispute as tenant under respondent No, 1 in the Khasra Girdawari.
2. In the Khasra Girdawari for the crops of Rabi and Kharif 1983 the entries in respect of the Killas in dispute were changed by the Patwari, for, now instead of continuing to be recorded as tenant under respondent No, 1, the petitioner was shown to be in possession of the said Killas as a co- sharer. On learning about the alteration respondent No, 1 moved an application before the Collector for the .Correction of the Khasra Girdawari. The Collector allowed the application and directed that the earlier entries be repeated. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner which was allowed and the order of the Collector was set aside. Respondent No, 1 filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue. This was dismissed. However, on review the Board of Revenue set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner and restored that of the Collector. The petitioner filed a Constitution petition in the High Court to call in question the legality of the order made in review by the Board of Revenue but it was dismissed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. In support of this petition it is contended that the petitioner was admittedly a co-sharer alongwith respondent No, 1 in the Killas in dispute. He could not therefore be described as a tenant under respondent No,
1. Consequently, the impugned order of the Board of Revenue could not be sustained.
4. The contention raised in support of this petition is without any merit. As already stated, at the time of the sale the vendor had given the possession of the Killas in dispute to respondent No,
1. It was open to respondent No, 1 to cultivate these Killas himself or let them out to another person. In this case he chose to get the Killas in dispute cultivated through the petitioner. The petitioner was therefore clearly a tenant under respondent No, 1 and the Khasra Girdawari for the crops prior to Kharif 1982 correctly represented the position on the spot. The contention that a co-sharer could not also be a tenant is in the circumstances without any merit. This petition has no substance and is hereby dismissed.