Judgment 1. THE point for decision in this rule obtained by an opposite party, one successfully pre-empted, is whether or no section 24 of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act 20 of 1949 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) avails a co-sharer non-agricultural under-tenant part of whose undivided! tenancy has been transferred by another co-sharer non-agricultural under-' tenant. The facts are not in dispute. Pra-valata Nandi, Jibandhan Chatterjee and Benoy Krishna Chatterjee are owners in equal shares of. 096 acres of non-agricultural land in the town of Chan-dernagore spread over plots 363 and 364 under Khatian No. 212 on a rental of Rs. 5 /and also over a bata dag, 364/851 under Khatian No. 374, a khatian subordinate to khatian No. 212, on a rental of Rs. 36/ -. Their status is that of a dakhalkar under a dakhalkar, in other words, that of an under-tenant. Plot No. 363 is recorded as a dokan (a shop), plot No. 364 as a danga and the bata dag as a bastu. Jibandhan sells his one-third share to a stranger Tulsidas Kar for Rs. 1,330 / The date of the sale is November 11, 1960. Pravalata thereupon moves the court for pre-emption under section 24 of the Act, wrongly described in the trial court's order-sheet as one under section 26f of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The date of an application as that is November 21, 1960. In her application, Pravalata impleads Tulsidas and Jibandhan, the buyer and the seller respectively, as the first two opposite party and Benoy Krishna as a pro por forma one. Tulsidas meanwhile sells for Rs. 2,400/-, what he had purchased from Jibandhan, to Sudhanshu Kumar Saha. The date of This sale is November 26, 1960. On an,-other application of Pravalata, who is not to lag behind, Sudhanshu Kuma.-is added as an opposite party too, though the manner in which he is added without any amendment in the body of the main petition leaves much to be desired. 2. WHEN the petition proceeds to trial, Sudhanshu Kumar alone resists it. The two points he takes are that the land is not non-agricultural and that the pre-emptor Pravalata is bound to pay, in addition to the usual compensation, Rs. 2,400 /-, the consideration money of his purchase. The learned munsif negatives both the points and allows pre-emption. 2. WHEN the petition proceeds to trial, Sudhanshu Kumar alone resists it. The two points he takes are that the land is not non-agricultural and that the pre-emptor Pravalata is bound to pay, in addition to the usual compensation, Rs. 2,400 /-, the consideration money of his purchase. The learned munsif negatives both the points and allows pre-emption. Sudhansu Kumar having carried the matter in appeal, the only point urged before the learned subordinate Judge is that the transfer being by a non-agricultural under tenant, section 24 of the Act cannot apply. The learned judge rejects the contention and dismisses the appeal. Sudhansu Kumar has, therefore, come up to this Court and obtained this rule, as noticed. Mr. Ghose, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, reiterates the same point; that a transfer by a non-agricultural tenant does not attract section 24 of the Act. On no other point does he addresses me. Mr. Bhattacharya, the learned Advocate for Pravalata, the' pre-emptor, now the opposite party no. 1 before me, contends just the other way about: that the very scheme of the Act brings a non-agricultural tenant as well within the ambit of section 24 there of. The relevant provisions of the Act need looking into with side-glances here and there. Chapter I captioned 'preliminary' consists of two sections- the second of which contains a number of definitions. Of these definitions, two call attention: non-agricultural land which, in accordance with subsection (4) of section 2, means (omitting what is not required) land used for purposes not connected with agriculture or horticulture and includes and land held so on lease ; and non-agricultural tenant-an expression which, in accordance with sub-section (5) of section 2, means (omitting the words not required) a person who holds non-agricultural land under another person and is, or but for a special contract would be, liable to pay rent to such person for land. Chapter II bears the heading : Classes of Non-Agricultural Tenants. It has three sections- section 3 to 5. Section 3 is divided into three sub-sections. Sub-section (1) provides that, for the purposes of the Act, there are two classes of non-agricultural tenants: (a) tenants and (b) under-tenants. Non-agricultural tenants, therefore, constitute the genus of which one species is tenants and another species under-tenants. Thus it can be said in safety that under tenants are non-agricultural tenants too. Section 3 is divided into three sub-sections. Sub-section (1) provides that, for the purposes of the Act, there are two classes of non-agricultural tenants: (a) tenants and (b) under-tenants. Non-agricultural tenants, therefore, constitute the genus of which one species is tenants and another species under-tenants. Thus it can be said in safety that under tenants are non-agricultural tenants too. Say, if you will, they form a class of non-agricultural tenants, the other class being tenants. But they are non-agricultural tenants all the same. Subsection (2) defines a tenant whose badge is that he has acquired from a proprietor or a tenure-holder a right to hold non-agricultural land for any of the purposes of the Act. Sub-section (3) defines an under-tenant, the indicia of such a one being his acquisition of a right to hold just as above, but under a tenant mediately or immediately, not under a proprietor or a tenure-holder. The purposes for which a non-agricultural tenant (obviously used in the generic sense so as to include an under tenant) may hold non-agricultural land are three: (a) homestead or residential purposes, (b) manufacturing or business purposes, and (c) other purposes. Section 5 enacts a "deeming" provision prescribing when a non -agricultural tenant (in the generic sense again) shall be denied to hold a non-agricultural land. Thus ends Chapter II Chapter III which is now reached is a chapter on Tenants, as the heading thereof goes to show. And tenants, be it remembered, form but a class of non-agricultural tenants (section 3. This chapter runs into ten sections-sections 6 to 15. How a tenant may use non-agricultural land is provided for in section 6. Then a dichotomy is made of tenancies mainly on the basis of their duration. The incidents of tenancies held for not less than twelve years, including renewals and transfers thereof and succession thereto, are provided for in sections 7 and 8. And the incidents of tenancies held for more than a year but less than twelve years are provided for in section 9. The ejectment of a tenant is not the easy after it; was before. But what if he uses his non-agricultural land for an immoral, illegal or unsocial purpose, or in a manner which constitutes a menace to public peace and the like ? A co-sharer tenant or the landlord is then given the right, by section 10, to purchase the land misused so. But what if he uses his non-agricultural land for an immoral, illegal or unsocial purpose, or in a manner which constitutes a menace to public peace and the like ? A co-sharer tenant or the landlord is then given the right, by section 10, to purchase the land misused so. Sections 11-14 deal with the enhancement of rent in its various aspects. And a lone section, section 15, deals with the reduction of rent. That is end of Chapter III, the next one, Chapter IV, dealing with under-tenants, as its heading proclaims ; no less the first section it opens with : section 16. Of the remaining six sections in this chapter-sections 17-22-section 17 prescribes the term on which an under tenant may be admitted to the occupation of a non-agricultural land, section 18 the rate of rent which, barring certain exceptions, shall not exceed one and a half if the rate his landlord (i.e., the tenant) pays for the particular land, section 19 the mode and limit of the enhancement of rent, section 20 the grounds on which the under-tenant makes himself liable to be ejected, and section 21 the incidents of his tenancy-such as heritability transferability and the like. Section 22 still remains. It is deserving of special notice. By virtue thereof-1. a co-sharer under-tenant or his landlord (i. e., the tenant) has the right to purchase the non-agricultural land if an under tenant misuses by bringing it on the edge of morality or law, just as co-sharer tenant or the landlord has under section 10 ; 2. (i) where a tenancy of an under-tenant is held under a lease in writing for a term of not less than 12 years or under conditions sub-sections (1) to (5) of section 7 specify-conditions which do not bulk large here-he (the under tenant) shall have all the rights and liabilities of a tenant as set forth in section 7 or 8; (ii) more, he then elevates himself to be a tenant governed by sections 6, and 11 to 15 (the tenant's monopoly) instead of by sections 18 to 20 (his monopoly. Now comes Chapter V captioned : Provisions as to transfer of non-agricultural land-a chapter in which section 24 I have been called upon to construe occurs. But to section 23 first-a section this chapter begins with. Now comes Chapter V captioned : Provisions as to transfer of non-agricultural land-a chapter in which section 24 I have been called upon to construe occurs. But to section 23 first-a section this chapter begins with. It provides for the manner for transfer of non-agricultural land, namely, by a registered instrument, notices to landlords etc. Section 24 confers the power to purchase the non-agricultural land (a) on the immediate landlord if the entire non-agricultural land in a non-agricultural tenancy is transferred, and (b) on the immediate landlord or one or more co-sharer tenants if part or share of such land is transferred. It lays down too the manner of enforcement of the rights, the priority between the landlord and a co-sharer tenant, the consequence of the order granting pre-emption, certain exemptions etc. Section 25 overrides the Evidence Act, I of 1872, and prescribes that the recitals in an instrument of transfer to which the landlord is not a party shall not be evidence against him on the permanence of the tenancy, the amount or fixity of rent, the area, the transferability or any incident thereof. Chapter V concludes with section 26-an interpretation clause-which defines certain terms: the definitions contained in subsection (1) holding good, for this chapter only and those contained in subsection (2) holding good for section 23 only. This then is a conspectus of the relevant provisions which perhaps leads to a better appreciation of the contentions raised by Mr. Ghosh and Mr. Bhattacharya. Section 24 of the Act is dependent upon section 23, as it must necessarily be. A transfer first; the right of purchasing in preference to the buyer next. Mr. Ghosh, therefore, starts with section 23 the opening words of which are-Every transfer of non-agricultural land held by a non-agricultural tenant and contends that a non-agricultural under-tenant is not to be seen there. To see, however, only a tenant in the expression "non-agricultural tenant" is to see a little less than what it contains. 3. BY the definition of non-agricultural tenant in section 2 (5) of the Act read with section 3 (1) which says that there are two classes of non-agricultural tenants: (a) tenants and (b) under-tenants, it is made more than clear that an under-tenant is a non-agricultural tenant too. This is just what Mr. Bhattacharya contends for. 3. BY the definition of non-agricultural tenant in section 2 (5) of the Act read with section 3 (1) which says that there are two classes of non-agricultural tenants: (a) tenants and (b) under-tenants, it is made more than clear that an under-tenant is a non-agricultural tenant too. This is just what Mr. Bhattacharya contends for. Another key-expression is non-agricultural land as to the transfer of which Chapter V of the Act makes provisions, going by the heading the chapter bears. And one of the provisions is section 23 which prescribes the mode of transfer of non-agricultural land by a non-agricultural tenant. What is non-agricultural land ? section 2 (4) defines it, as noticed. The definition, in its amplitude, includes land used by an under-tenant too. So, section 23, instead of excluding, includes transfer of non-agricultural land by an under-tenant who longs to the second class of non-agricultural tenants, a tenant belonging to the first class. That way, therefore, Mr. Ghosh cannot get away from section 24. Section 24 by itself means no less when it speaks of the entire non-agricultural and or portion or share thereof in a non-agricultural tenancy being transferred. A non-agricultural tenancy must be the tenancy of a non-agricultural tenant. So, to the definition of non-agricultural tenant in section 2 (5) relied on by Mr. Bhattacharya, I come full circle back. And the definition is such that it includes a tenant as much as an under tenant. 4. AN under-tenant the like of which I see here is certainly a person who holds non-agricultural land-a shop, a homestead, an adjacent danga land-under another person (here a tenant) and is liable to pay rent to that person for what he holds. What the rent is has been noticed. And to section 3 (1) again. The tenancy of an Hinder-tenant, one of the two kinds of non-agricultural tenants, is a non-agricultural tenancy as well. I, therefore, reject Mr. Ghose's contention that section 24 in terms does not include an under-tenant. I accept instead Mr. Bhattacharya's contention that nothing there is in the section to exclude an under-tenant. Relying on sections 16 and 22 of the Act, Mr. Ghosh invites me to apply the maxim : expression unius est exclusion alterius, the English rendering of which is-express enactment shuts the door to further implication. It 'beats me how I can do so. Bhattacharya's contention that nothing there is in the section to exclude an under-tenant. Relying on sections 16 and 22 of the Act, Mr. Ghosh invites me to apply the maxim : expression unius est exclusion alterius, the English rendering of which is-express enactment shuts the door to further implication. It 'beats me how I can do so. Section 16, the-first section in Chapter IV, does no more than make the provisions of that chapter applicable to under-tenants and that too by way of abundant caution. By way of abundant caution, because even without it a chapter the heading of which is under-tenants will necessarily govern the under-tenants. Section 22 makes the misbehaving under-tenants amenable to section 10 and confers certain privileges of tenants on a class of under-tenants of not less than 12 years' standing or having other attributes. In so doing, section 22 specially mentions the sections in Chapter III which will apply to under-tenants, governed though they are by Chapter IV, and in keeping with that, certain specific sections in Chapter IV are taken away from them. Surely, they cannot be governed by both sets of provisions in the two chapters. Section 24 is not here. It cannot be here. As Mr. Bhattacharya submits, Chapter III is a special chapter for the tenants and Chapter IV another special chapter but for the under-tenants only. So, if some provisions of Chapter III are to be extended to the under-tenants, a provision to that end has to be there. And that is section 22. Then comes Chapter IV, to continue noticing Mr. Bhattacharya's submission, a general, one for non-agricultural tenants-tenants and under tenants both-not a special one for one class of non-agricultural tenants to the exclusion of the other class. That being so, it is futile to expect any reference to section 24 in section 22. Thus, nothing is left here to implication. Let these express enactments in the shape of sections 16 and 22 shut the door to further implication. The door, to the express provision in the form of section 24 bringing within its fold non-agricultural tenants-an expression which means tenants and under-tenants-is always wide open. So this contention of Mr. Ghosh fails too. The reason for decision in (1) Kinuram Sadhukhan v. Hazi Md. Yu-suf, 63 C. W. N. 939, Mr. The door, to the express provision in the form of section 24 bringing within its fold non-agricultural tenants-an expression which means tenants and under-tenants-is always wide open. So this contention of Mr. Ghosh fails too. The reason for decision in (1) Kinuram Sadhukhan v. Hazi Md. Yu-suf, 63 C. W. N. 939, Mr. Ghosh relies upon, is that since Yusuf, an occupancy raiyat, carves out a portion 0f the land of his tenancy and sublets it for' non-agricultural purposes, his sub-lessee will be an under-raiyat as de-fined in the Bengal Tenancy Act, thus precluding Yusuf's right to pre-empt under section 24 of the Act. In the case in hand, Pravalata is a non-agricultural tenant of the second class ; an under-tenant. Her immediate landlord Sabya Bikash Banerjee is a non-agricultural tenant too, but of be first class, that is to say, a tenant. [see Kkatians 208 and 212, exts. E and E (1)]. So the consideration which weighs with their Lordships in the Bench decision just referred to, on the basis of a long line of decisions from (2) Baburam's case, 8 C. W. N. 454, cannot weigh with me. To get out of the difficulty Yusuf's status of an occupancy raiyat creates, one argument advanced on his behalf is that section 16 of the Act makes Kinuram and his wife under-tenants, no matter what the status of their immediate landlord Yusuf is. This argument comes up against the same barrier-the barrier of Kinuram and his wife being under-raiyats within the meaning of the Bengal Tenancy Act. So section 16 or any section of the Act is not for them. In this background should be read the observations in the Bench decision that section 24 not being a provision of Chapter IV, but of Chapter V, there is no warrant far Kinuram and his wife being deemed as under-tenants for the purpose of section 24, because of section 16. I hold Piravalata to be an under-tenant, not because of section 16-that will be moving in a vicious circle-but because she fits so nicely with the definition in section 2 (5) read with section 3 (3) of the Act, shorn of a barrier which keeps Kinuram and his wife away from it. I hold too, on what I consider to be a true construction, that section 24 is wide enough to include an under tenant. 5. THE last point Mr. I hold too, on what I consider to be a true construction, that section 24 is wide enough to include an under tenant. 5. THE last point Mr. Ghosh urges upon me is that, as section 26f of the Bengal Tenancy Act does not apply to the under -raiyats with occupancy rights, by analogy, section 24 of the Act cannot apply to the under-tenants. Mr. Ghosh has been good enough to take me through several corresponding sections of the Bengal Tenancy Act. . I refuse to be drawn by an analogy of this type, when the express provisions of the Act which alone concerns me are so clear. Then, section 26f occurs in the Ben.-gal Tenancy Act's Chapter V captioned "occupancy Raiyats", unlike Chapter V of the Act so compendiously caption--ed and adequately enacted drawing to it both the classes of non-agricultural tenants-tenants and under-tenants (3) Santosh Kumar Duary and anr. v. Upendra Naht Pramanik, 45 C. W. N. 790, Mr. Ghosh cites, decides that a co-sharer of an under-raiyati holding with occupancy right has no right of preemption against his co-sharer under the amended section 26f, even though it confers that right upon the co-sharer, tenants, because section 26f has to by read with section 48g which makes the; right of pre-emption available to him. only as regards his immediate landlord,, So, section 26f and 48g between themselves lead to such a conclusion which,, however, cannot mean that the right: of pre-emption section 24 of the Act provides for excludes a non-agricultural under-tenant. One has no connection with the other. 6. MR. Bhattacharyya has a point of his own resting on the West Bengal estates Acquisition Act, 1 of 1954, taken before me for the first time. The relief the courts below has given the op-posit party Pravalata stands. Nothing that Mr. Ghosh submits can undo it. It is, there for, hardly necessary to deal with what Mr. Bhattacharyya contends for. In the result, the rule is discharged. For all I see, the contention Mr. Ghosh has raided is a point of first impression. So I direct that each party do pay and bear it costs.