JUDGMENT M.C. Ghose, J. - In this case the land in suit was sold on 17th December, 1935, by a kobala to Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2. The notice of the transfer being served upon the landlord, the landlord made an application under sec. 26F of the Bengal Tenancy Act for pre-emption. The pre-emption was opposed by Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2 who are minors, represented by their father Ajimuddin. Ajimuddin gave evidence which was accepted by the trial Court that the land in suit represents l/3rd share of a previous holding which was purchased on 18th (March, 1929, by Tarapada Mukherjee. Ajimuddin's case is that as to 2/3rd share of the land then purchased, Tarapada Mukherjee was the owner, as to l/3rd share he was the benamdar of Ajimuddin who paid his share of the purchase money and he afterwards paid his share of the landlord's fee, that since then he has been in possession of the land and built a homestead upon it, that in 1935, the said Tarapada Mukherjee sold his 2/3rd share to another person; at that time Ajimuddin wanted a Nadabi deed as to his l/3rd share from Tarapada Mukherjee but Tarapada Mukherjee without his knowledge executed a sale deed in favour of his two minor sons Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2, that the sale deed was without any consideration and without the knowledge and consent of himself or of the minors and that Ajimuddin's title is independent of the alleged sale deed of 17th December, 1935. Upon these grounds, the Court below has refused the preemption. It is urged in this Court that the Court below committed an error of law in going into the question of the previous title of Ajimuddin based on a sale-deed of March, 1929; that is not a matter for consideration in this summary proceeding under sec. 26F where unless the case comes under the four exceptions noted in the section itself, the immediate landlord may apply to the Court for pre-emption and the transferee can make no objection except that he can claim further sums on account of improvement and annulling of incumbrances, etc. Sec. 26F does not contemplate that the rights of a third party should be adjudicated thereon. Sec. 26F does not contemplate that the rights of a third party should be adjudicated thereon. The learned Advocate for the Opposite Party quoted the cases of Nabendra Kishore Roy v. Abdul Majid 39 C. W. N. 673 (1935) and Mohini Mohan Mitra v. Radha Sundari Dassi 39 C. W. N. 1014 (1935). But the facts of both those cases are different from the present case. In the first case the transferee pleaded that he was a benamdar for a co-sharer in the tenancy and as such he claimed the exception of sec. 26F (1) (a). The plea of benami was considered by the Court and found to be correct and the pre-emption was refused. In the present case, the matter is entirely different. Ajimuddin's case in effect is that the transferees Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2 had obtained nothing by the alleged transfer. If that be so, Ajimuddin's right will not be affected by the pre-emption claimed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner by the granting of the pre-emption will only get the right, title and interest in the holding of the transferee, namely, Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 2. Any rights which Ajimuddin may have acquired in 1929 will not be affected by the granting of the present preemption. Sec. 26F requires certain matters to be proved and upon proof thereof the landlord is entitled to preemption. It is not open to the transferee to raise independent issues which are not contemplated by the section, nor can he be allowed to say that the deed of transfer upon which the preemption is claimed is not what it purports to be. The party must be held bound by the statements in the deed itself. See the cases of Surendra Nath Laik v. Natan Behary Mondal 35 C. W. N. 114 (1930) and Troilokya Nath Ghose v. Jajneshwar Pal 38 C W. N. 1004 (1934). 2. The Rule is made absolute with costs, hearing-fee one gold mohur.