SYED JAMSHED ALI, J. - This judgment will dispose of R.S.A. No. 574 ot 1997 and R.S.A. No. 575 of 1977, as both these appeals raise common questions of law and fact between the same parties.
2. Vide two registered sale-deeds dated 23.6.1972 and 18.7.1972, Riasat Ali. The vendor sold his land respectively measuring 17 Kanals and I6 Marlas and 20 Kanals situated in village, Waran Tehsil and District Sheikhupura. To the appellants. Muhammad Malik respondent pre-empted these sales by filing two separate suits on the ground that he was a tenant on the land in dispute.
3. The suit was contested primarily on the ground that the respondent was a "Thekedar" and not a tenant. Necessary issues were framed and the suit was tried.
4. The tenancy of the respondent having been established and there being no serious contest on sale-consideration, both the suits tiled by the respondent were decreed on 17.9.1974.
5. The appellants-vendees took two appeals before the learned District Court which were dismissed on 16.6.1977 by the learned Addl. District Judge. Sheikhupura.
6. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and record examined. These appeals were admitted to consider the effect of the Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1976 (Act No. XLVIII) whereby all suits enforcing right of pre-emption on the ground of tenancy stood transferred to the Collector concerned under sub para (5) of para 25 of the Land Reforms Regulation. 1972 as amended by the aforesaid Act. The decree in this case had already been passed on 17.9.1974, much before the addition of sub-para (5) to para 25 of the aforesaid Regulation. Therefore, the question of transfer of the suit to the Collector concerned did not arise.
7. The learned counsel next contended that as per documents produced by the respondent he was a "Thekedar" and not a tenant and, thus, could not maintain the suit. This submission was based on the entries of khasra girdawaries for Kharif 1972 to Rabi 1974. The following entries appears in the cultivation column. {{URDU TEXT MISS}} There are on the record as Ex.P-2 and P-4 in one case and Ex.P-3 and P-4 on the other.
8. The contention has no force firstly for the reason that this entry describes the respondent as a tenant on fixed rent and secondly the appellants had tiled a suit in the Court of Tehsildar with the powers of Assistant Collector, Grade-I seeking ejectment of the pre-emptor-respondent on the ground of default in the payment of Lagan for Kharis 1972 and Rabi 1973. Taj Khan one of the appellants appeared as DW-1 Who was confronted with this plaint. He admitted having filed that suit. In this plaint, the appellants had submitted that the respondent was a tenant on the suit land at fixed rate of Rs.200.00 per killa. The plaint in the suit of the appellants is on the record as Ex.P-1 in one case and Ex.P-3 in the other.
9. I may refer to Lai Din Versus Bashir Alynad (1991 S.C.M.R. 228) wherein, the right of a ' Chakotadar'
(tenant on fixed rent) to pre-empt a sale was upheld.
10. In view of the above the appeal has no merit and is accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.