Judgment 1. THESE two Rules arise out of two applications for preemption under section 24 of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act (being nos. 6 and 34 of 1960) before the Munsif of Midnapore. The facts which are mostly admitted may be briefly stated as follows: there was a jama of Rs. 28-1-7 pies for 1. 39 acres of land recorded in khatian no. 51, and held by one Chandra Mohan Agasthi under the landlords who may be referred to as Abinash Chandra Mitra and others. Anil Kumar and Ajit Kumar, who had 1/3rd share in the above holding, transferred their 1/3rd interest by a kobala dated 5. 7. 54 to the petitioner and the opposite party no. 3 and the petitioner thereby became a co-sharer in this holding. Subsequently, each of two other co-sharers, Sarat and Sudhirsimilarly transferred his 1/3rd interest. The first transfer was in favour of Kuchal Prosad Maity and the other was in favour of Shiba Prosad Majumdar and they are the opposite parties in the two applications respectively. The petitioner now claims pre-emption in respect of these two transfers which took place on the same date, i.e., 16. 3. 56. 2. TWO points were taken in the courts below viz., that the applications were barred by limitation and secondly, that the tenancy having been divided, the application for pre-emption was not tenable. Before us it is only the second point which has been agitated. At this stage it is conceded that the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act as regards pre-emption are attracted to these transfers by virtue of section 71 of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1949. The only question for our determination is whether there has been a division of the holding or a distribution of the rent payable in respect thereof within the meaning of section 88 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, because It is not disputed that if the holding had been duly divided or the rent distributed according to that provision, an application for pre-emption will no longer be tenable in respect of a transfer of any of the portions so divided. Now, in the present case, prior to the transfer in favour of the petitioner there was a partition of the holding as between the three groups of co-sharer tenants, holding 1/3rd interest each, by a registered deed of partition dated 21st Agrahayan, 1360 B. S. and the evidence is that it was followed by a division of the land by metes and bounds. Subsequently, the landlord also appeared to have recorded the jama under separate holdings at the rate of Rs.9 and odd for each. It is urged by Mr. Panda on behalf of the petitioner that there is no written instrument showing the consent of the landlord and all the co-sharer tenants as required by section 88 (1) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. 3. THE trial court also seemed to have been under the apprehension that there must be one single document expressing the consent of both the landlord and the co-sharer tenants to effect a valid division or distribution in terms of section 88 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. But in view of the decision of this court in the case of Amulyadhan Sinha v. Kanak Chandra Mustifi and Ors. (1) (45 C. W. N. 896 at page 899) it is clear that section 88 of the Bengal Tenancy Act does not require that in all cases, the landlord and the co-sharer tenants must give their consent in writing simultaneously or by the same instrument, but provides that where there has been a valid division as amongst the tenants it will not be binding upon the landlord without his express consent. The object of the requirement of consent in section 88 (1) is quite clear. The parties affected by any division of the tenancy would be the co-sharer tenants and the landlord. Hence, it is provided that in order to be a valid division for the purposes of the Act, all the parties so affected must give their consent. Under the general law, there is nothing to prevent the co-sharer tenants to divide the tenancy by a deed of partition. But even then it will not be binding upon the landlord, for the purposes of the B. T. Act, unless his consent to it is obtained. If the landlord, therefore, subsequently gives his consent in writing, it cannot be urged that the landlord's consent has not been given according to this statutory provision. But even then it will not be binding upon the landlord, for the purposes of the B. T. Act, unless his consent to it is obtained. If the landlord, therefore, subsequently gives his consent in writing, it cannot be urged that the landlord's consent has not been given according to this statutory provision. In this context, we may also refer to sub-section (1) of section 88 of the Bengal Tenancy Act which is as follows: "provided that, if there is proved to have been made in any landlord's rent-roll any entry showing that any tenure or holding has been divided or that the rent payable in respect thereof has been distributed, such landlord may be presumed to have given his express consent in writing to such division or distribution." 4. THIS proviso indicates that the consent of the co-tenants and the landlord need not be in the same document or by a simultaneous writing. In the present case, the landlord's rent-roll has been produced and it shows that there has been a division of the tenancy with a distribution of the rent at the rate of Rs. 9-5-11 p. in 1/3rd share. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that it is the rent-roll of 1361 and not that of 1360 B. S. which indicates the sub-division but as has been pointed out by the learned Advocate for the opposite parties it is the next year's rent roll which can possibly record the result as made by the partition between the parties. In any case, there is also a subsequent record of rights which shows the division of the tenancy as well as of the rent duly recorded. Though the record of rights may not have a presumption backwards, it corroborates the landlord's rent roll as well as the opposite parties' case that the division of the tenancy made by the registered partition deed has been accepted by the landlord. In view of this it is hardly tenable to contend that the division of the tenancy has not been made in terms of section 88 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. This being the only point urged on behalf of the petitioner the applications must fail and they are discharged. There will be no order as to costs.