Pre-emption under tenancy law turns on registration, and one cosharer tenant may apply without joining all other cosharers.

For pre-emption under the Bengal Tenancy Amendment Act, 1938, the decisive date was registration of the sale deed, not mere execution before the Act came into force, because the right arose only on a completed transfer and title passed on registration. The court held that Section 47 of the Registration Act did not change that result for pre-emption purposes, so the cosharer tenant's claim was maintainable. It further held that an application by one cosharer tenant under Section 26P was not bad for non-joinder of the other cosharer tenants, as the Act imposed no such joinder requirement and the joint-action rule in Section 188 could not be imported. The trial court's order allowing pre-emption was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, for the purposes of pre-emption under the Bengal Tenancy Amendment Act, 1938, the relevant date is the date of execution of the sale deed or the date of registration when the deed was executed before but registered after the Act came into force; (ii) Whether an application by a cosharer tenant for repurchase under Section 26P was bad for non-joinder of the other cosharer tenants.

Issue (i): Whether, for the purposes of pre-emption under the Bengal Tenancy Amendment Act, 1938, the relevant date is the date of execution of the sale deed or the date of registration when the deed was executed before but registered after the Act came into force.

Analysis: The right of pre-emption arose only on a completed transfer, and under the statutory scheme governing occupancy holdings, title could pass only upon registration of the conveyance. Until registration, no enforceable right accrued either to the landlord under the earlier law or to the cosharer tenant under the amended law. The scheme of Sections 26C and 26F indicated that the operative event for attracting the pre-emption provisions was registration, not mere execution. Section 47 of the Registration Act did not alter the position as against third parties for this purpose.

Conclusion: The date of registration was the material date, and the cosharer tenant's claim under the amended provision was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether an application by a cosharer tenant for repurchase under Section 26P was bad for non-joinder of the other cosharer tenants.

Analysis: The Act contained no provision requiring all cosharer tenants to be joined in an application by one cosharer tenant under Section 26P. The requirement of joint action under Section 188 applied to the special case of immediate landlords proceeding under the earlier provision and could not be extended to the amended cosharer-tenant remedy. The proceeding was therefore not defective for want of joinder of other cosharers.

Conclusion: Non-joinder of the other cosharer tenants did not vitiate the application.

Final Conclusion: The lower appellate court's reversal was unsustainable, and the trial court's order allowing the cosharer tenant's pre-emption claim stood restored.

Ratio Decidendi: For statutory pre-emption attaching to a transfer of occupancy holding, the decisive event is completion of the transfer by registration, and a special statutory remedy granted to one cosharer tenant cannot be defeated by importing a joint-application requirement applicable only to a different class of applicants.

---