R.S.Narula, J.

1. The question of law which calls for decision in this Regular Second Appeal against the judgment of affirmance given by the lower appellate court upholding the decree of the trial Judge dismissing the suit of the appellant for a declaration to the effect that he is not liable to be dispossessed in execution of a pre-emption decree against the original vendee who inducted the appellant as a tenant on the land in dispute, is, "whether a successful pre-em-ptor is bound by the tenancy created by the vendee after the sale in his favour?" In other words, the question is, whether relationship of landlord and tenant is or is not created by operation of law between a pre-emptor-decree-holder on the one hand and a tenant inducted by the vendee into the preempted property after the sale in his favour but before the decree in the pre-emption suit.

2. The undisputed facts necessary for deciding this appeal lie in a very narrow compass and may, first, be narrated. One Mansab Rai (hereinafter referred to as the original vendor) sold to Om Parkash (hereinafter called the vendee) agricultural land measuring 16 acres in village Shamas Din Chishti, Tehsil and district Ferozep