JUDGMENT : ANIL KSHETARPAL, J. C.M. No. 560-C-2022 1. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by the affidavit, the delay of 832 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. 2. CM stands disposed of. MAIN 3 In this Regular Second Appeal, the plaintiffs assail the correctness of the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the courts below while dismissing their suit for grant of decree of declaration that they had become owners in possession of their respective share in the suit land in view of the provisions of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1952 Act'). In substance, the plaintiffs claim that they are in continuous cultivating possession of the property from the year 1963-64 and they are being shown as tenants on 'Nakgdi Lagan (cash rent)'. 4. The defendants while contesting the suit contended that the plaintiffs are not occupancy tenants and they are tenants on payment of 1/3 rd share in the produce. 5. Both the courts on appreciation of the evidence have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they have become occupancy tenants as provided under Section 5(2) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1887 Act'). 6. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book. 7. The learned counsel representing the appellants submits that the continuous uninterrupted possession of the appellants is proved and there is no evidence to prove that they had paid rent more than the amount of land revenue. He submits that in fact there is no evidence that the plaintiffs ever paid any rent. 8. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel representing the parties. 9. Section 5 of the 1887 Act, reads as under:- “ 5. Tenants having right of occupancy .— (1) A tenant— (a) who at the commencement of this Act has for more than two generations in the male line of descent through a grandfather or grand-uncle and for a period of not less than twenty years been occupying land paying no rent thereof beyond the amount of the land-revenue thereof and the rates and cesses for the time being chargeable thereon. (b) who having owned land, and having ceased to be landowner thereof otherwise than by forfeiture to the Government or than by any voluntary act, has, since he ceased to be landowner, continuously occupied the land. (c) who, in a village or estate in which he settled along with, or was settled by, the founder thereof as a cultivator therein, occupied land on the twenty-first day of October, 1868 and has continuously occupied the land since that date. (d) who, being jagirdar of the estate or any part of the estate in which the land occupied by him is situate, has continuously occupied the land for not less than twenty years, or , having been such jagirdar, occupied the land while he was jagirdar and has continuously occupied it for not less than twenty years, Has a right of occupancy in the land so occupied, unless, in the case of a tenant belonging to the class specified in clause (c), the landlord proves that the tenant was settled on land previously cleared and brought under cultivation by, or at the expense of, the founder. (2) If a tenant proves that he has continuously occupied land for thirty years and paid no rent there for beyond the amount of the land-revenue thereof and the rates and cesses for the time being chargeable thereon, it may be presumed that he has fulfilled the conditions of clause (a) of sub-section (1). (3) the words in that clause denoting natural relationship denote also relationship by adoption, including therein the customary appointment of an heir, and relationship by the usage of a religious community.” 10. On careful reading of Section 5(2) of the 1887 Act, it is evident that the tenant is required to prove that he has not paid the rent beyond the amount of land revenue. The entry in the jamabandies show that the predecessor of the plaintiffs were in possession on payment of 1/3 rd share in the crop. They have failed to lead evidence that they have fulfilled pre-conditions laid down in Section 5(2) of the 1887 Act. 11. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, no ground to interfere is made out. 12. Dismissed. 13. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.