' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---The petitioners were found to be tenants of Sikandar who was lessee of the land. The High Court has held in the impugned judgment that a tenant from lessee did not have right of pre-emption under paragraph 25 of the M.L.R.
115.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has brought to our notice a notification issued by the Land Commission, dated 10-8-1973, which is reproduced below in extenso:--- "I am directed to state that it has been brought to the notice of the Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab that all certain places lessees are being treated as tenants for the purpose of para. 25 of Martial Law Regulation No, 115 of 1972 and their applications alleging unauthorized ejectment are also dealt with under this Secretariat's Notification No, DSL-71-73/1007-LC(II), dated the 9th March, 1973. Attention in this respect is. Invited to this Secretariat's subsequent Notifications Nos. DSL- 142/73/1628- LC(I1), dated the 23rd April, 1973 and No, DSL-142/73/2322-LC(II), dated the 8th June, 1973 in which it has already been clarified that a lessee is a landlord and cannot be treated as a tenant for purpose of para. 25 of Martial Law Regulation 115.
' The following questions have also been raised in connection with the implementation of para. 25 of Martial Law Regulation 115:---
(I) Whether a tenant under a lessee would be entitled to the benefits of para. 25 of Martial Law Regulation 115?
(ii) Whether a tenant would continue to enjoy this right under para. 25 of Martial Law Regulation 115 on the change of the landowners or lessees under whom he was holding land immediately before such change?
It is clarified that a tenant under a lessee is entitled to the benefits of para. 25 of Martial Law Regulation 115. So far as question (ii) is concerned, the correct position is that according to subsections (12) and (26) of section .4 of the East Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967, "landlord" and "tenant" include the predecessors and successors-in-interest both of a landlord as also of a tenant respectively. In view of this the change of a landowner or of a lessee is of no consequence so far as the rights of tenants are concerned and the latter would continue to enjoy the protection of para. 25 of MLR 115 in any case.
' I am to request you to give wide publicity to the above matter in the rural areas."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in paragraph 25 of the M.L.R. 115, it has been provided that a tenant qua land comprising his tenancy has superior right of pre-emption and under the said notification of Land Commission such a tenant was also found to be entitled to benefit of paragraph 25 of the M.L.R. 115, therefore. Findings of the High Court that the petitioners were not entitled to the right of pre-emption according to the amendment made in 1983 wherein lessee has been excluded from the definition of tenant was not relevant, for, even if lessee had been excluded from the definition of tenant, the petitioners actually tilling the land would still be entitled to right of pre-emption under the paragraph 25 of the said M.L.R., qua land comprising their tenancy and it is irrelevant as to who is their landlord.
4. The question requires examination, therefore, leave is granted to consider the same.
5. Since a short point is involved, the appeal shall be fixed withinthis year.