9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (7) TMI 165X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 3. The appellants were the tenants of the disputed land under her. She sold the land to respondents 1 and 2 on the 21st June, 1965. The land sold measured 176 kanals 4 marlas. The plaintiffs claimed the right of pre-emption in respect of the agricultural land in suit in accordance with clause "Fourthly" of Section 15(1)(a) of the Pre-emption Act. The suit was resisted by the vendes-respondents on several grounds. It was decreed by the Trial Court on the 20th June, 1967 in respect of a portion of the land, measuring 157 kanals 2 marlas. The vendes's appeal in the First Appellate Court failed on the 20th April, 1968. They succeeded, however in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana on the basis of the decision of this Court in B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relying upon the order of eviction without bringing the copy of the order on record. (3) That the order of eviction was in respect of about 3 standard acres of land only and a decrees for pre-emption in any event ought to have been made in respect of the remaining portion of the land measuring about 9 standard acres. Section 15(1) of the Pre-emption Act says: The right of pre-emption in respect of agricultural land and village immovable property small west (a) where the sale is by a sole owner.... Fourthly, in the tenant who holds under tenancy of the vendor the land or property sold or a part thereof. Under the general law of pre-emption it is firmly established that the decisive date as regards the right of pre-emptor to pre-emp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n been suggested for doing so. The language employed is not very happy but the clear requirement is that the tenant must hold the land as such. And finally it was said at page 643 : It must be remembered that sale alone does not and cannot divest the tenant of his right to hold the land of which is in possession by virtue of his tenancy and under the vender. But if his tenancy is determined by a decree for eviction he loses his status of a tenant. He then does not satisfy the first requirement of Section 15(I) FOURTHLY that he is a tenant who holds the land. In that situation he cannot succeed in a pre-emption suit if the decree for eviction has been passed after the sale but before the institution of the suit or during its pandency and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t against the tenant so that the latter's right to pre-empt the sale made in favour of the former may not be defeated. We think two views of the law may be reasonably possible on the point at issue. It is therefore not expedient or advisable to send this case to a larger Bhagwan Das's case nor is that case distinguishable. 5. The second grievance of the appellant is to some extent justified but the submission does not stand final scrutiny. Respondents 1 and 2 had filed an application in the first appellate Court under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC for admitting the order of eviction dated 22-5-1967 as an additional evidence in the case. That court rejected that application, the proper course for the High Court, therefore, was to admi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
