RSA No. 2120 of 2005 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2120 of 2005 Decided on : 06-03-2009 Anand Singh and others ....Appellants VERSUS Dharambir and another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr.Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the appellants. None for the respondents. MAHESH GROVER, J This is defendant's second appeal directed against the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court dated 7.5.2005. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiffs- respondents have filed a suit for possession by way pre-emption against the present appellants seeking to pre-empt the sale in their favour. It was alleged by the plaintiffs-respondents that they were the tenants on the suit property which is agricultural land which the appellants have purchased from Chand Roop, the original owner vide sale deed dated 11.12.95. It was pleaded by the plaintiffs-respondents that they were tenants under Chand Roop and were entitled to pre-empt the sale. Appellants contested the suit and contended that plaintiffs- respondents were not tenants and their status as such was denied and the validity of the sale deed was pleaded. Both the parties went to trial on the following issues:- RSA No. 2120 of 2005 2 1. Whether the plaintiffs have a superior right of pre-emption in respect of the suit land in preference to the defendants?OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiffs have got no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 3. Whether the defendants have incurred stamp and registration and scribed charged of the sale deed in question if so to what extent?OPD. 4. Relief. Learned Trial Court dismissed the suit and held that plaintiffs- respondents were mere Gair Marusi tenants and their status of tenants was not available on record. Learned First Appellate Court upset the findings by holding that the respondents were the tenants on the suit property and therefore they were entitled to pre-empt the sale within the meaning of Section 15(1)(a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the findings of the learned First Appellate Court to contend that the findings were perverse as there is total mis-reading of the revenue record which is produced by way of evidence. No one appears for the respondents. After hearing learned counsel for the appellants and perusing the impugned judgment and also the record, I am of the considered opinion that the following question arises for the determination of this Court:- 1. Whether a 'gair Marusi' has got any right under Section 15 (1) (a) of the Punjab Pre-emptin Act to get the sale pre- empted made by the original owner? RSA No. 2120 of 2005 3 2. Whether in the absence of any proof of payment of rent, relationship of landlord and tenant can be proved to be established? The evidence on record shows that there was a valid existing sale deed in favour of the present appellants executed by Chand Roop, owner of the property. The revenue records which have been produced reveal that the plaintiffs-respondents were merely Gair Marusi tenants and so far as column of rent is concerned the same was blank. No other evidence was produced by the respondents to show that they were the tenants on the premises in question. Khasra Girdawari reflect the status of the plaintiffs-respondents to be a Gair Marusi but as observed earlier the column of entries was vacant. No other evidence was there that rent in the appropriate form was paid to the appellants. In this view of the matter, the questions of law are answered in favour of the appellants to hold that in the absence of any evidence to show that the plaintiffs-respondents were tenants they are not entitled to pre-empt the sale under Section 15(1)(a) of the Punjab Pre-emption Act. Appeal stands allowed. March 06, 2009 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge