Judgement

GROVER, J.: - This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

2. In December 1966 Labhu Ram who was the owner of the land in dispute sold the same in two lots to Bhagwan Das (deceased) now represented by his legal representatives and others. The lands mentioned in cls. (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 14-A (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.

3. 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 Pre-emption 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.

4. 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 v. Chuhar Ram, Letters Patent Appeal No. 71 of 1965, D/- 19-11-1969 =(1970) 72 Pun LR 325 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 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 Sohan Singh v. Udho Ram, 1967-69 Pun LR 414).

5. In Hans Nath v. Ragho Prasad Singh, 59 Ind App 138 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 v. Lt. James R. R. Skinner, ILR (1942) 23 Lah 155 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 defeat 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