FATEH MUHAMMAD Versus AHMAD
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 15th January, 1980, which dismissed the petitioner's second appeal upholding the dismissal of his pre-emption suit by the lower courts. The core legal question is whether a vendee who was a tenant of the disputed land at the time of sale loses his superior pre-emption right as a tenant upon acquiring ownership through the same sale. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the acquisition of ownership status based on the sale in question is immaterial regarding the preferential right of pre-emption, and does not confer superiority upon the pre-emptor. The crucial time for determining the superiority of a pre-emption right is the date of the sale. The key principle laid down is that a tenant-vendee retains his preferential right of pre-emption notwithstanding that the sale transforms his status to an owner, as the relevant date to assess superior right is the date of the original sale.
- Does a tenant who purchases land cease to be a tenant for the purpose of pre-emption rights?
- What is the crucial time to determine the superiority of a right of pre-emption?
- Does the acquisition of ownership via sale destroy a vendee's preferential pre-emption right as a tenant?
ORDER
ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA, J.- -One Muhammad Yousaf effected the sale of the disputed land in favour of respondent Ahmad. Fateh Muhammad, the petitioner claimed pre-emption in respect of the sale in question on the ground that he was owner of the estate in which the land in dispute was situate. The respondent resisted the suit on the plea that he was in possession of the disputed land as a tenant at the time of its sale in his favour and therefore he had the first right of pre-emption. The petitioner's claim was rejected by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court and, therefore he filed a second appeal in the Lahore High Court which also met the same fate vide judgment dated 15th January, 1980.
2. In support of this petition for leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court. learned counsel only contended that once the respondent had become the owner of the land by virtue of the sale in his favour, he ceased to be a tenant and therefore had no superior right as compared with the petitioner. However, the learned counsel very fairly conceded that this point now stands finally settled in view of the decision of this Court reported as Muhammad Khan and others v. Muzaffar P L D 1983 S C 181 and Jan -Muhammad v. Taj Masih 1987 SCMR 1142 in which it was held that the fact of a tenant having acquired the status of an owner on the basis of the sale which is the subject-matter of the suit for pre-emption, is immaturities qua his preferential right of pre-emption and does not confer superiority in favour of the pre-emptor, the crucial time to show such superiority of right being the date of sale.
3. As no other argument was raised, we find no substance in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.
S.Q. /F-25/5 Petition dismissed.