( 1 ) THE petitioner is the landlord and filed an application under S. 14 (1) the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 for resumption of the land R S no. 337/15 measuring 2 acres and 13 guntas assessed at Rs 5 situated at sambra village, Belgaum District The claim made by the landlord was that the land is bona fide required by him for his personal cultivation and that the income from the suit land will be the principal source for his maintenance The Land Tnbunal. Belgaum, raised two points for consideration they are (1) Does the applicant prove that he requires bona fide the land in dispute for his personal cultivation, and (2) If yes, what is the extent of the land to which he is entitled to for resumption under the amended provisions of S 16 (10b) of MLR Act, 1961 It held that the petitioner is entitled to resume half of disputed land R. S. No 337/15 measuring 2 acres and 13 guntas assessed at Rs. 5 For arriving at this conclusion, the Land Tnbunal recorded certain findings, they are (1) that the landlord reasonably and bona fide required the land for his personal cultivation, (2) that the income of the suit land will be the principal source for his maintenance; and (3) the extent of land to which the landlord would be entitled to claim under S 31b (1) of the BT and AL Act of 1947 would be half of the land claimed by the landlord. On the question, of bona fide and reasonable requirement, the Land Tribunal found that there was no material placed to hold that the claim of the landlord was not bona fide On the question of the principal source of income, the view 1aken was that barring, the temporary income that the landlord was deriving from working as an accountant, he has no other source of income. ( 2 ) THE tenant-respondent filed an appeal before the 1st Additional district Judge, Belgaum, and the learned District Judge who heard the said appeal, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Land Tribunal the learned District Judge held that the claim of the landlord was not bona fide and that it was stated that the income from the suit land may not be the main source of income It is these two findings that indumately to the dismissal of the landlord's application ( 3 ) IT is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this revision petition. ( 4 ) SRI K I Bhatta, the learned Counsel appealing for the respondent-tenant, raised a preliminary objection that the revision petition is not maintainable under S. 115 CPC , inasmuch as, under the provisions of s. 117 of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961, before its amendment in the vear 1970, an appeal was competent only to the District Judge and according to the notification, it is the District Judge of Belgaum who was competent to hear the appeal. The decision of the District Judge was not that of a Court but of a Tribunal It was further submitted that having regard to the fact that the appeal was preferred to the District Judge and he has riven a decision, it is final and no revision petition is maintainable under the provisons of S 115 CPC ( 5 ) S. 117 of the Mysore Land Reforms Act providing for preferring appeals to the appellate authority has been repealed and consequently the notification issued under the provisions of S. 117 is no more in existence. S. 118 provides that an appeal shall lie to the District Court. Therefore it is the District Court that is entitled to hear and dispose of the appeals against the orders passed by the Land Tribunal-now Munsiff's Court the word 'lard Tribunal' has also been repealed and in its place the word 'court' the 'munsiff Court' has been substitued The resulting position is that District Court being the Court subordinate to the High Court the provisions ot S115 CPC are attracted Even though it may have been stated that the decision of the District Court shall be final, it does not preclude the High Court from entertaining the revision petition under s. 115 CPC. ( 6 ) THIS Court had occasion to consider the question as to whether every order including interlocutory order was appealable. In the case of govinda v. Mary Fernandez , (1970) 2 Mys. L. J. 466. the question for consideration was whether an application for amendment was appealable under S. 118 of the mysore Land Reforms Act or whether a revision petition was tenable under S. 115 CPC. Discussing this question it was stated: "' 3. The main question that arises for consideration is whether under S 115 of the CPC. a revision petition lies to this Court from an interlocutory order passed by the Land Tribunal in an application under S. 14 of the Act. In order to answer this question, it is necessary to refer to S. 118 (1) of the Act. That section reads: the other sub-sections of this section arc not necessary for the purpose of this case. This provision has been amended by Act VI of 1970 with effect from 15th January 1970 All that has been done by the amendment is tha for the word 'tribunal' 1he word 'court' is substituted and for the expression 'appellate Authority' the expression 'district Court' is substituted. ( 7 ) AN order or, an interlocutory application allowing amendment under the Act, cannot, therefore, be construed as one which affects the rights and liabilities of the parties. It is only an interlocutory order, the correctness of which can be questioned in an appeal against the final decision in the main case. If the argument of the land-ladies is to bo accepted, then an appeal would lie from every order passed in the case even though it. docs not affect the rights and' liabilities of the parties finally. We do not think that this was the intention of the Legislature as observed by the Supreme Court in the central Bank; of India's case referred to above. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no appeal lies from such interlocutory orders which do not affect the rights and liabilities of the parties as such; therefore, a revision petition is maintainable under S. 115 of the CPC. In appropriate cases, the High Court may interfere with interlocutory orders in revision. That does not mean that the tenants in this case,who are the petitioners before us, can succeed on the merits of the case. In appropriate cases, the High Court may interfere with interlocutory orders in revision. That does not mean that the tenants in this case,who are the petitioners before us, can succeed on the merits of the case. It is open to them to raise all grounds of objection including the grounds which they have raised now against the order following the amendment, in the appeal which may be filed against the final order to be passed in the main application " ( 8 ) IN this view of the matter, it is to be held that the present revision petition is maintainable beforp this Court the preliminary objection raised by the respondent's Counsel is rejected 8. Sri W. K. Joshi, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. contended that in the present case the finding given by the learned District Judge that the petitioner has been Carrying an Arishina business is based upon no material and since chat finding is not based upon any material. the said finding is lisbe to be set aside. It is also urged that for the purpose of finding out as to whether the cclaim of the landlord is reasonable and bona fide,' what is to be seen is whether the requirement of the landlord is an honest one. Further if it is neither capricious, unfair nor absurd then it would be a reasonable requirement. ( 9 ) IN the present case, by overlooking the principles governing the claim, the appellate Court has rejected the claim by making a reference to two factors viz. , (1) the landlord possessed some other lands which were sold after he took possession 20 years ago. as he wanted money as capital for starting his business Arishina; and (2) letters Exts P1 and P2 show that the claim of the landlord is not bona fide. The explanation given by the landlord was that even though he sold lands about 20 years ago to do business in Arishina, he has not done that business There is no material on record to show that the landord was doing Arishina business. On the contrary, the learned Judge has stated that " He admits that he is now doing some temporary work as an accountant in some shops at Belgaum and Sangli" Having accepted this statement, the learned Judge states that ''in the face of these admissions, it. On the contrary, the learned Judge has stated that " He admits that he is now doing some temporary work as an accountant in some shops at Belgaum and Sangli" Having accepted this statement, the learned Judge states that ''in the face of these admissions, it. is rather hard to believe that the applicant required the land bona fide for purpose of personal cultivation". The learned Judge also noticed that the letters are written in the year 1956 and even though he says that the letters are written in the year 1956 still it is stated, that a person who is writing accounts can hardly be expected to cultivate the land personally and therefore the requirement of the landlord has not been established. I am of the view that :n the present case the finding that the landlord does not require the land bona fide and reasonably for his personal cultivation is not based upon any evidence and so the finding is liable to be set aside. ( 10 ) UNDER S. 16 (10b) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, there are certain restrictions placed on the right oi the landlord to claim resumption of lands. S. 16 (10b) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act reads as under: 16 (10b) Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (1) to (10) (both inclusive), or S. 142, the extent of land, it any, resumable, by any landlord in Bombay Area, shall be subject to the restrictions and conditions specified in Ss. 31a, 31b, 31c of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, as inserted by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1955 (Bombay Act 13 ot 1956), notwithstanding the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy (Suspension of Provisions, and Amendment) Art, 1957 (Mysore Act 13 of 1957 ). " as a result of the provision of S. 16 (10b) of the Mysore Land Refprms act, the provisions of S 31a of the BT. and AL Act are invoked and according to S. 31a of the BT. and AL. Act, the right of a landlord to terminate a tenancy for cultivating the land personally under S. 31 shall be subject to the following conditions. and AL Act are invoked and according to S. 31a of the BT. and AL. Act, the right of a landlord to terminate a tenancy for cultivating the land personally under S. 31 shall be subject to the following conditions. The condition with which we are concerned is condition No. (c), the income by the cultivation of the land of which he is entitled to take possession is the principal source of income for has maintenance The provisions of S. 34 (1) (c) of BT. and AL Art and S 31 A of the Amended Act are identical The provision of S. 34 of the BT. and al Art 1948 came up for consideration before the High Court of Bombay in the case of Dattatraya Vishnu v. Ganpat Ragho, AIR. 1957 Bom. 193, FB, the Full Bench was constituted to construe Cl (c) of sub-sec. (1) of S 34 of the act. Chagla. CJ observed as under. " The other view is that not, only the landlord must require the land for his maintenance, but it must also be found that the income from the land of which he is seeking possession is the principal source of his income. In other words, a comparative test must be applied and the income of the landlord from sources oher than the land of which the possession is sought must be considered and it is only if the income from the land of which he is seeking possession is larger than the income from other sources that the condition laid down in Cl. (c) will be satisfied. In order to decide which is more correct view we"must look at the nature of the Act which we are construing and the object that the Legislature had in mind. It is needless to repeat what has often been said in this Court that this is an ameliorative Act and it hag been enacted for the benefit of the tenants. It is also necessary to bear in mind that sub-sec. (2) of S. 34, in which Cl. (c) finds a place is a restrictive provision restricting the right of the landlord to obtain possession which has been conferred upon him by S. 34 (1), and therefore this restriction must be construed strictly in favour of the tenant and against the landlord. "the Court also made a reference to the decision in ILR 33 Bom. (c) finds a place is a restrictive provision restricting the right of the landlord to obtain possession which has been conferred upon him by S. 34 (1), and therefore this restriction must be construed strictly in favour of the tenant and against the landlord. "the Court also made a reference to the decision in ILR 33 Bom. 376 a case arising under the D. A. R. Act and then stated that:"applying that test to the expression used by the Legislature in this case, which is identical, in our opinion the proper approach to the matter is that when a landlord applies for possession of the land as required by him for personal cultivation, the first question that must be'decided is whether the source of income from the land in suit- or in the action is larger than his income from all other sources. If the income is not larger, then no further question remains to be determined and the landlord's action must fail. If it turns out that the source of. his income from the land in question is larger than the income from all other sourcees, then the next question would be whether he requires this income for his maintenance. If the landlord is already in a position to maintain himself from the other sources, then again the landlord must fail. It is only if he satisfied both these conditions that he can obtain possession from his tenant. " the provision of this S. 34 (1) (c) also came up for consideration before this Court in Subbaji Malhar Joshi v. Mysore Board of Revenue,1959 Mys. L. J. 276 this Court accepted the test laid down in the Full Bench decision of the bombay High Court and stated as under: "we are in respectful agreement with their Lordships of the Full bench of the Bombay High Court. To determine as to whether the income from the suit lands would be the main source of the income for purposes of clause (c), there must be a comparison of the income from those lands with the income of the landlord from other sources. In order to make such a comparison it is essential that there must be evidence as to the income from the suit lands. In order to make such a comparison it is essential that there must be evidence as to the income from the suit lands. In the absence of such evidence, it will not be competent for the Mamlatdar to infer as to whether any possible or supposed income from the suit lands could be the main source of the income of the landlord for his maintenance. A mere statement of the landlord himself to the effect that the income from the suit lands would be more than his income from other sources, could not be a substitute for positive evidence as to the expected income from the suit lands. "thus when a claim is made by a landlord for resumption on the ground that he requires it for cultivating personally, the first question that must be decided is whether the source of his income of the land of which resumption is claimed is larger than his income from all other sources. If the income is not larger then no further question arises. If however the income is found to be larger than all other sources, then the question is whether he requires this additional income for his maintenance. The landlord will get the land only if he satisfies that he is not in a position to maintain himself. Thus the two conditions must be satisfied, namely, that the income of the land claimed is the principal source and second it is required for his maintenance. ( 11 ) IN the present case, the Land Tribunal took the view that the landlord has no other source and he was getting temporarily a sum of Rs. 300 or so by working as an accountant. The learned Appellate Judge thought that in addition to this income of Rs. 300, the landlord must be getting certain income from the trade in Arishina. I have already held that there is no material to show that the landlord is getting any income from the trade Arishina. Neither the Land Tribunal nor the lower appellate Court has taken into consideration the rent which the landlord was deriving from the suit lands. 300, the landlord must be getting certain income from the trade in Arishina. I have already held that there is no material to show that the landlord is getting any income from the trade Arishina. Neither the Land Tribunal nor the lower appellate Court has taken into consideration the rent which the landlord was deriving from the suit lands. In these circumstances, there is no proper consideration and decision on the question arising under S. 31a (c) of the Act, the orders passed by both the Courts below are set aside and the case is remitted back to the lower Court for the purpose of deciding the only other issue remaining i. e. . whether the income by the cultivation of the land of which he is entitled to take possession is the principal source ol income and required for his maintenance. The trial Judge will now decide this question and decide the application in accordance with law. ( 12 ) IN the result, this revision petition is allowed, the orders passed by the Courts below are set aside and the case is remitted back to the trial court for disposal in accordance with law and in the light of the directions issued in this judgment. There will be no order as to costs. Parties are at liberty to lead such evidence as they may desire. --- *** --- .