MUHAMMAD KHAN and another vs Mst. ZUBAIDA BEGUM and 6 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition in a pre-emption suit. The core legal question is whether the right of pre-emption, specifically when granted to a tenant under Martial Law Regulations, is inheritable and whether it survives the death of the original tenant if the successor does not meet the necessary tenancy requirements at all relevant stages of the suit and decree. The petitioners argued that the right of pre-emption is not inheritable and that the successor tenant, Muhammad Nazir, did not qualify as the tenant at the relevant times, whereas the eldest son, who might have qualified, had relinquished the tenancy. The Supreme Court, finding that these submissions regarding the inheritability of the pre-emption right and the application of the Punjab Tenancy Act require deeper examination, granted leave to appeal. The Court held that the legal questions raised regarding the survival of the pre-emption right post-death of the original tenant warrant a full hearing on the merits.
- Is the right of pre-emption granted to a tenant under Martial Law Regulations inheritable upon the death of the original tenant?
- Does a pre-emption suit based on tenancy survive if the successor tenant does not maintain tenancy status at all relevant stages of the litigation?
- Section 60-A, Punjab Tenancy Act 1887
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by Vendee/defendant side in a pre-emption suit, against the dismissal by the High Court, of their Writ Petition.
2. ' There have been earlier remands but after the final remand order the respondents' suit for pre- emption having been decreed throughout on the ground of tenancy by the Revenue Authorities, the petitioners' Writ Petition was also dismissed, therefore, they have now sought leave to appeal.
3. Learned counsel, inter alia, has contended that the original tenant, namely, Muhammad Sadiq who had filed the pre-emption suit in 1973 died in 1976 during its pendency before any decree could be passed. He also contended that the High Court wrongly made the assumption that the right of pre- emption was inheritable and that Muhammad Nazir respondent No,3, one of the sons of the original tenant, having been found to be the successor tenant, the impugned decree was unexceptionable.
4. He relied on cases decided from various jurisdictions to show that the right of pre-emption as such is not inheritable. He argued that the peculiar right of pre-emption granted by the Martial Law Regulation to a tenant could not be continued unless after his death the successor tenant under section 60-A of the Punjab Tenancy Act continued to be the tenant at all relevant stages including those of suit and decree. And in this case Muhammad Bashir the eldest son of Muhammad Sadiq alone could be treated as tenant under the law. But the suit could not be decreed in his favour; because, admittedly he had given up tenancy--according to findings Muhammad Nazir was the tenant. These and other submissions raised in this petition require examination. Leave to appeal is granted.
5. ' Security Rs,5,000.
6. ' Appeal shall be prepared on present record with direction to the parties to file all additional documents which would be necessary for disposal of appeal.