( 1 ) THIS is the second time that this application for eviction of a tenant under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act comes up to the high Court. ( 2 ) THE original application made to the Mamlatdar for eviction ot the tenant was rejected by him but allowed upon appeal by the Assistant commissioner. The Bombay Revenue Appellate Tribunal interfered in revision and remanded the matter back to the Mamlatdar. An application against it under Art. 227 of the Constitution made to the Bombay High court stood transferred to this High Court under the provisions of the states Reorganisation Act. This High Court remanded the matter back to the original Authority, the Tahsildar. On this occasion, the Tahsildar made an order of eviction on 31st October 1961, which was confirmed on appeal by the Assistant Commissioner on 30th June 1964. During the pendency of a Revision Petition before the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal, the mysore Land Reforms Act was brought into force on 2nd October 1965. The ground for eviction was three defaxilts in payment of rent. It was argued before the Tribunal that the matter had to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 23 of the Mysore Land reforms Act. The Tribunal rejected the said contention and confirmed the order of eviction. ( 3 ) IN this Writ Petition, directed against the said order of the Revenue appellate Tribunal, the same contention is pressed and in support thereof, two decisions - one of the Supreme Court and the other of this Court following the same,-are cited. The decision of the Supreme Court is Akubai V. Appajji Krishnaji Kulkarni, CA. 618/65 dt. 1-3-1968, SC. . The decision of this. Court is in the case of Mahabaleshwar Nagappa v. Gopal Venkappa Hegde, (1970) 2 Mys. L. J. 23. ( 4 ) BOTH the decisions bear directly upon the point in issue and there is no doubt that this case will have to be disposed of in accordance with those decisions. 618/65 dt. 1-3-1968, SC. . The decision of this. Court is in the case of Mahabaleshwar Nagappa v. Gopal Venkappa Hegde, (1970) 2 Mys. L. J. 23. ( 4 ) BOTH the decisions bear directly upon the point in issue and there is no doubt that this case will have to be disposed of in accordance with those decisions. ( 5 ) S. 23 (2) of the Land Reforms Act reads as follows:-"notwithstanding anything contained in any enactment or pro-vision of law repealed by S. 142 or in any other law, in any proceedings pending on the appointed day or instituted on or after that day in pursuance of any such repealed enactment or law before any Court, officer or authority for eviction of a tenant on the ground of default in paying rent, such Court, Officer or authority shall not order eviction of the tenant, if the tenant pays to the landlord the arrears of rent together with the costs of the proceedings as decided by such Court, Officer or authority within such period as such Court. Officer or authority may fix. " ( 6 ) THE Supreme Court described this provision as a blanket provision prohibiting all courts, Officers or authorities from evicting a tenant on the ground of default, if the arrears of rent are paid in the manner indicated in the said sub-section. The case decided bv the Supreme Court was one which went up in appeal from this Court. The lower authorities had dismissed the application for eviction. But this Court, disagreeing with them on the question of default, made an order of eviction. The mysore Land Reforms Act came into force during the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court regarded the entire proceedings as still pending and found that the provisions of S. 23 (2) should be applied and therefore made an order remanding the proceedings back to the original authority, the Tahsildar, with a direction to calculate the amount of rent due and the costs of the proceedings and fix a time for payment thereof. The Supreme Court made a further direction that if the rents and costs so determined by the Tahsildar were paid within the time fixed by the Tahsildar, the order of eviction made by this Court will stand vacated. The Supreme Court made a further direction that if the rents and costs so determined by the Tahsildar were paid within the time fixed by the Tahsildar, the order of eviction made by this Court will stand vacated. ( 7 ) THIS decision of the Supreme Court was followed and applied by this Court in the case of Mahabaleshwar Nagappa v. Gopal Venkappa Hegde, cited above. The further point discussed and pronounced upon by this Court in the said case was whether the fact that possession had been taken from the tenant by the landlord during the pendency of the proceedings would make any difference. The answer of this Court was that having regard to the wording of S. 23 (2) of the Land Reforms Act. the said circumstance of change in possession would make no difference whatever. ( 8 ) IN the said case, however, the Court made a remand not to the tahsildar but to the Munsiff at Haliyal, functioning as the Land Tribunal under the Mysore Land Reforms Act. In doing so, the Bench appears to have followed a similar order of remand made by another Bench in an earlier case reported in Krishna Narasimha Hegde v. Venkataraman Thimmayya hegde, (1969) 1 Mys. L. J 516 ( 9 ) HAVING regard to these rulings which are binding upon us, there can be no doubt that the proceedings in the present case must be regarded as still pending at the time the Mysore Land Reforms Act was brought into force and that therefore no order of eviction could be passed except in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of S. 23 of the Land reforms Act. ( 10 ) MR. Datar, however, has argued that, as a matter of fact, in this case the tenants-petitioners were dispossessed so long ago as on 16th february 1956, and that in holding that such loss of possession could make no difference to the application of the provision, the Bench which decided the case of Mahabaleshwar a Nagappa, did not notice an earlier decision of another Bench of this Court reported in Shad Abdul Bagwan v. Mohamad Hanif Dada Bagwan, (1966) 1 Mys. L. J. 686. L. J. 686. One of the matters considered and decided in that case was the meaning and effect of sub-section (1a) of S. 142 of the Land Reforms Act, The main provision of the said S. 142 repeals certain previous statutes but applies the provision of S. 6 of the general Clauses Act. Sub-section (1a) is an exception to the proviso applying the provision of S. 6 of the General Clauses Act and states that in case where the eviction or dispossession has been stayed by the Mysore tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961, no agriculturist shall be liable to be evicted from land except in accordance with the provisions of the Land Reforms Act. The Court held that this exception to the general rule that old proceedings under the old Act should continue in accordance with the relevant provisions of the said old Act would be applicable only to cases where the possession of the tenants had been protected by the protection Act mentioned above and not to other cases. We do not think that that position has any bearing upon the situation obtaining in this case. The said case did not turn upon the provisions of sub- section (2) of S. 23 of the Land Reforms Act. The language makes it perfectly clear that the provisions thereof should apply to and must govern cases of eviction notwithstanding anything contained in any of the Acts repealed under S. 142. That is the reason why the Supreme Court has described the provision as a blanket, provision which applies to all cases where proceedings were pending at the time the Land Reforms Act came into force. ( 11 ) ANOTHER argument by Mr. Datar is that even so, the error committed by the revenue Appellate Tribunal in this case is only an error of law within the scope of jurisdiction and that we do net have the jurisdiction under art. 227 of the Constitution to interfere with any such error. The answer to that contention is that the error in this case is not a mere error of law but a material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction having direct and substantial effect upon the decision of the case upon merits and the rights of the parties to the reliefs provided under the special statute. The answer to that contention is that the error in this case is not a mere error of law but a material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction having direct and substantial effect upon the decision of the case upon merits and the rights of the parties to the reliefs provided under the special statute. ( 12 ) THE order of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal as well as the order of eviction made by the Tahsildar which stands confirmed by the said order of the Revenue Appellate Tribunal have, therefore, to be set aside. ( 13 ) THE remand, however, in our opinion, could be made only to the tahsildar and not to the Munsiff. The reason is that although the provisions of S. 23 (2) of the Land Reforms Act are made applicable to the proceedings, the proceedings still are those instituted under the Bombay tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and must continue under it. That is obviously the reason why the Supreme Court in the case of Akubai (1) remanded the matter to the Tahsildar describing him as the original authority. ( 14 ) IT is not quite clear how in the two Bench Rulings of this Court referred to above, the papers were sent to the Munsiff. The orders do not contain a statement of reasons. In the absence of any such statement of reasons, we hold that such proceedings retain the character of proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and that the remand should be to the Tahsildar, as in the case decided by the Supreme court. ( 15 ) WE therefore set aside the order of the Mysore Revenue Appellate tribunal, as well as the eviction order made by the Tahsildar which stood confirmed by the said order, and remand the matter to the original authority, the Tahsildar, Sirsi, for disposal according to law and in the light of the decisions cited above. The parties will bear their own costs. --- *** --- .