ORDER :

Brijesh Kumar, J. - While granting the leave to file an appeal in this Court, the following order was passed on 12-3-1997:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the question for decision is whether the averment in the plaint filed in the earlier suit (extracted at p. 25 of the paperbook), amounts to an admission of all the facts which are essential to satisfy the definition of ?tenant? in Section 2(17) of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. Learned counsel further submits that the averment in the earlier plaint being treated as admission of the petitioner cannot be construed as an admission by the petitioner that the respondent is a tenant. His submission further is that this question of law which arose for decision in the second appeal was not properly appreciated or decided by the High Court.

Leave granted."

2. To properly appreciate the background in which the abovesaid question arose for consideration it may be necessary to have the brief facts leading to the fact of admission said to be made by the plaintiff.

3. The appellant-plaintiff is undisputedly the owner of the land in question. Relevant entries in the revenue records for different yea