Judgment :- 1. This appeal is from the decision of Madhavan Nair, J., in S A. 1337/61. The second appeal arose from a suit for redemption of a kanom. The suit was allowed by the Munsiff of Kozhikode on the ground that the plaintiff bona fide required the property for his own use and under the law then in force redemption was possible on such a ground. But in appeal the decision was reversed by the District Judge of Kozhikode observing that under Act 4/61 which governs such transactions, no redemption can be had. The learned Single Judge has set aside the decree of the lower appellate court and remanded the suit to the court of first instance so as to enable the plaintiff to move for resumption under the Act (Act 4/61), later superseded by Act 1/64. 2. The right of resumption of the landlord has undoubtedly to be adjudged under the provisions of Act 1/64. Under S.132 of Act 1/64, all suits, appeals, revisions, reviews and proceedings in execution of decree stayed by the repealed enactments. Proclamation XVI of 1122 (Cochin), Proclamation VI of 1124 (Cochin), Kerala Ryotwari Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act, 1962, the Kerala Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act 1963 etc. are to be disposed of by the courts in which they are pending at the commencement of the present Act, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 3. Proclamation XVI of 1122 (Cochin), Proclamation VI of 1124 (Cochin), Kerala Ryotwari Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act, 1962, the Kerala Tenants and Kudikidappukars Protection Act 1963 etc. are to be disposed of by the courts in which they are pending at the commencement of the present Act, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 3. Therefore, the the appeal is to be disposed of under the provisions of Act 1/64, and under that Act no landlord is entitled to evict his tenants from the holdings, but the landlord may in certain cases resume his holding under S.14 to 22 of the Act and regarding this right S.132 (3) (c) (i) would provide, "Where the decree-holder, plaintiff, appellant or petitioner, as the case may be, is a person entitled to resumption of land under this Act, he shall have the right to apply to the court to allow resumption of the holding or any part thereof to which he is entitled" And section (c) (ii) would read, "the application under sub-clause (i) shall be made within one year from the commencement of this Act and shall contain a statement of facts in support of the claims of the applicant and also the names and addresses of all persons who have interest in the holding either as owner, lessee or kudikidappukaran." And sub-section (c) (iii) is, "the court shall dispose of the application as if it were an application for resumption before the Land Tribunal under this Act." 4. Learned counsel for the appellant points out that no application for resumption was moved by the plaintiff at any stage of the proceedings, and the said right is, therefore, barred under S.132 (3) (c) (ii) of the Act. But according to the learned single judge the suit itself is to be construed as one for resumption, and in that case the bar of S.132 (3) (c) (ii) will not and cannot apply, and so an opportunity should be provided to the plaintiff to go ahead with his right of resumption and it is for that purpose that the learned judge has remanded the case to the trial court. We are unable to subscribe ourselves to this view. No motion was, at any time, made by the plaintiff for resumption under any of the sections of the Act. We are unable to subscribe ourselves to this view. No motion was, at any time, made by the plaintiff for resumption under any of the sections of the Act. Before the lower appellate court, however, a prayer was made by the plaintiff that the case should be remanded so as to enable him to apply for resumption before the trial court, but the learned appellate judge turned down that prayer with the observation that sufficient safeguards in that direction having been made in the Act itself there was no need for a remand to the lower court for that purpose. The landlord was, however, directed by the court to move the Land Tribunal in the matter; but even then no steps were taken by the landlord in that direction. The Act having conferred the right of resumption under certain circumstances, it was up to the landlord to avail himself of that right by making the necessary application before the Land Tribunal. Any way, we are not concerned with that question for the present, especially when no application for resumption has been made by the plaintiff in the suit. In the circumstances, the view taken by the lower appellate court is in our opinion, correct and has to be upheld. In the result the learned Single Judge's decision is set aside and that of the lower appellate judge is restored. The parties will suffer their costs in this court. Allowed.