Summarize the following court judgment. Appeal No. 192 of 1970. Appeal by special leave from the		 judgment and order dated December 15	 1969 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No. 1949 of 1968. section C. Manchanda	 section K. Mehta	 K. L. Mehta	and K. R. Nagraj	 for the appellant. Rameshwar Dial	 section K. Bagga	 section D. Sood and section Bagga	 for the respondent. 641 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Grover	 J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judg ment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court. In December 1966 Labhu Ram who was the owner of the land in dispute sold the same in two lots to Bhagwan Das (do	ceased) now represented by his legal representatives and others. The lands mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the title of the. plaint in the suit out of which the present appeal has arisen were sold for Rs. 20	000/ and Rs. 1	000/ respectively. The respondent Chet Ram was a tenant at will of the lands covered by the sales. Bhagwan Das and others filed a suit against Chet Ram in the revenue court for ejectment under section 14A (i) read with section 9 ( 1 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act 1953 which was decreed on July 31	 1967. On August 31	 1968 Bhagwan Das and others entered into possession of the aforesaid lands after evicting Chet Ram by virtue of the decree for eviction obtained against him. After his eviction Chet Ram the present respondent filed a suit for possession of the lands which were the subject matter of sale by pre emption under section 15(1)(a) FOURTHLY of the Punjab Preemption Act	 1913	 (Punjab Act 1 of 1913)	 hereinafter called the 'Act '	. By that provision the right of pre emption has been declared to vest in the tenant who holds under tenancy of the vendor the land or property sold or a part thereof. It was admitted before the trial court that the respondent was a tenant before July 31	. 1967 and that before the institution of the pre emption suit his tenancy had been determined. The trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned Additional District Judge	 in view of certain decisions of the Punjab High Court	 allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. The judgment was upheld in second appeal by the High Court. The sole question for determination is whether a person who has ceased to hold the land sold as a tenant can succeed in a suit for possession by pre emption under section 15(1)(a) FOURTHLY. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Kashmiri Lal & Others vs Chuhar Ram(1) had expressed the view that in a suit based on a right under the aforesaid clause the plaintiff was required to prove only that he was a tenant under the vendors on the date of the sale and not at any time thereafter as he could not remain a tenant under the vendors after they had sold the property. In certain other judgments delivered by learned single judges of the Punjab High Court it had been recognised that the rule was firmly established in the law relating to pre emption that a pre emptor in order to succeed must have a right to pre empt not only at the (1) Letters Patent Appeal No. 71 of 1965 decided on November 19	1969; 642 time of sale but also at the institution of the suit and the passing of the decree by the trial court. In other words	 the pre emptor 's right should subsist up to the date of the passing of the decree and if he lost that right at any time before the decree was granted his suit must fail. These learned judges of the High Court	 however	 considered that the language of section 15 (1) (a). FOURTHLY 	showed that the legislature intended to depart from the well settled principle mentioned before and all that has to be seen is whether the plaintiff was a tenant of the vendor on the date of sale (see Sahan Singh vs Udho Ram & Others(1). In Hans Nath & Others vs Ragho Prasad Singh (2) it was laid down by the Privy Council that the decisive date as regards the right of a pre emptor to pre empt the sale was the date of the decree. A. full bench of the Lahore High Court in Thakur Madho Singh & Another vs Lt. James R. R. Skinner & Another(1) while considering the relevant provisions of the Act applied this rule to a case where a vendee had improved his status during the pendency of the pre emption suit and held that a vendee could de feat the right of a pre emptor by improving his status at any time before the passing of the decree. The right of pre emption is a weak one and is liable to be defeated by	 all legitimate means at the instance of a vendee against whose contract an inroad is being attempted by the pre emptor. The vendee is on the defensive and is entitled to arm himself with a shield in order to protect his right. The pre emptor is an aggressor and as he wishes to dislocate the vendee he must show that the superior right of pre emption which he had at the date of the sale continued to remain superior at all relevant times: vide Faiz Mohammad vs Fajar Ali Khan & Another(1) (Full Bench). In the latest full bench decision of the Punjab High Court in Ramji Lal & Another vs The State of Punjab & Others( ) the rule that a pre emptor must maintain his qualification to pre empt upto the date of the decree was recognised as well settled. 'In the presence of the above principle which is firmly entrenched in the law of pre emption it is difficult to conceive that the legislature intended to depart from it in section 15 (1) (a) FOURTHLY nor has any reason been suggested for doing so. The language employed is not very happy but the clear requirement is that the tennant must hold the land as such. If his tenancy	 has come to an end and he has been dispossessed it can never be said that he is holding the land under tenancy of any one. The legislature can hardly be attributed the intention of giving the right to a tenant	 who has been dispossessed and whose tenancy has been (1) (2) 59 I.A. 138. (4) 1. (3) 1. L. R. [1942] 23 ILah. (5) 643 determined either before or during the pendency of the suit	 to obtain a decree for possession by pre emption. This is particularly so as the statutory right of pre emption is one which attaches to the land and is not a mere personal right. There could be no basis for the legislature giving an indefeasible right to a person who happens to be in possession of the land sold as a tenant of the vendor. His right is neither better nor worse than any other person who has been conferred that right by the provisions of section 15 of the Act. For instance	 a co sharer has been given a right to pre empt the sale of a share out of joint land by clause (b) FOURTHLY of section 15(1). If a co sharer must retain his right upto the date of the decree	 which he must	 (See Surjit Singh vs Gurnam Singh etc.(1) there is no intelligible ground for treating a tenant differently. The tenant must show his right at all material times before he can succeed in a suit for pre emption. In other words his tenancy must remain intact and he must hold the land in his capacity as a tenant till the date of the decree. It must be remembered that sale alone does not and cannot divest the tenant of his ' right to hold the land of which he is in possession by virtue of his tenancy under the vendor. 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 s.15(1) 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 pendency and before the date of the decree. This would be so by applying the well established rule which	 as stated earlier	 has become a part of the law relating to pre emption. In the present case not only a decree for eviction was passed against the respondent but he was also actually dispossessed from the land in his tenancy pursuant to the decree before he filed the pre emption suit. We are altogether unable to see how he could be granted a decree in such a suit. An attempt was made by means of C.M.P. No. 4634 of 1970on behalf of the respondents to reopen the question of the area in respect of which the decree for eviction had been passed on July 31	 1967. It was maintained that it related only to certain Khasra Numbers which were covered by the first sale shown as clause (a)in the heading of the plaint and that there was no order relating to eviction from the land covered by the second sale mentioned in clause (b) therein. This question was never raised in the courts below and as it involves an investigation into matters of (1) (1964) P. L. R. 10623. 644 fact it was not possible to allow the same to be reopened at this stage. The appeal is allowed and the suit of the respondent is dis missed. In view of the nature of the points involved the parties are left to bear their own costs in this Court.

The appellants purchased certain lands and filed a suit against the respondent	 who was the tenant at will under the vendor	 for ejectment The suit was decreed. The appellants entered into possession and the tenancy of the respondent was determined. Thereafter	 the respondent filed a suit for possession by pre emption under section 15(1) (a) Fourthly of the Punjab Pre emption Act	 1913 which provides that a right of preemption vests in a tenant who holds	 under tenancy of the vendor the land or property sold or a part thereof. It was contended that it was sufficient if the plaintiff proved that he was a tenant under the vendor 	on the date of the sale. HELD: The well established principle being that a pre emptor must maintain his qualification to preempt upto the date of the decree for possession by pre emption	 the Legislature cannot be attributed the intention of giving the tight to a tenant who has been dispossessed and whose tenancy has been determined either before or during the pendency of his suit	 claiming the right of pre emption. This is particularly so as the statutory right of presumption is one which attaches to the land and is not a mere personal right. [641 H; 642 A B	 F G; 643 A B] Hans Nath vs Ragho Prasad Singh	 59 I.A. 138	 Thakur Madho Singh vs Lt. James R. R. Skinner	 I.L.R. [1942] 23 Lah. 155	 Faiz Mohammad vs Fajar Ali Khan	 I.L.R. [1944] 25 Ladfl 473 and Surjit Singh vs Gurnam Singh	 	 referred to. Ramji Lal vs State of Punjab	 	 approved. Kashmiri Lal vs Chuhar Ram	 and Sohan Singh vs Udho Ram	 	 over ruled.