( 1 ) THIS revision petition raises a question under the provisions of the mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 and arises in this way: the petitioner-landlord filed an application under the provisions of s. 14 of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, for resumption of the land S. No. 20511, 36511 and 36611 of Jugal village, Athani Taluka. All these lands together measured 14 acres 17 guntas. The application was resisted by the tenants. The Munsiff and Land Tribunal at Athani by his order dated 5-4-1969 took the view that S. No. 366/l measuring 5 acres and 6 guntas was resumable and the rest of the lands were non-resumable. ( 2 ) THIS order made by the Land Tribunal was challenged in appeal before the District Judge. The learned District Judge, by his order dated 29-6-1970, allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Munsiff and ad-hoc land Tribunal and dismissed the application for resumption. The sole reason for arriving at this conclusion given by the District judge is that under the provisions of S. 31b of the Bombay Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act, the tenant had to be kept in possession of each survey number separately to the extent of half and if that was done it would result in contravening the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this revision petition. ( 3 ) THE relevant provisions of law governing this matter are the provisions contained in S. 16 (10b) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 (as amended by Act 14 of 1965), which are as follows:" Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (1) to (10) (both inclusive), of Sec. 142, the extent of land, if any, resumable, by any landlord in Bombay area, shall be subject to the restrictions and conditions specified in Ss. 31a, 31b and 31c of the BT and AL. Act, 1948, as inserted by the BT and AL (Amendment) Act, 1955 (Bombay Act 13 of 1956), notwithstanding the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy suspension of Provisions and Amendment) Act, 1957 (Mysore Act 12 of 1957 ). " ( 4 ) AS a result of the provisions of S. 16 (10b) of the Mysore Land Reforms act, the provision of S. 31b of the BT and AL Act are attracted. Sec. 31b reads:" 31b. " ( 4 ) AS a result of the provisions of S. 16 (10b) of the Mysore Land Reforms act, the provision of S. 31b of the BT and AL Act are attracted. Sec. 31b reads:" 31b. In no case a tenancy shall be terminated under S. 31 (1) in such manner as will result in leaving with a tenant, after termination, less than half the area oi the land leased to him or (2) in such a manner as will result in a contravention of the provisions of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of holdings Act, 1947, or in making any part of the land leased a fragment within the meaning of that Act. " ( 5 ) THE contention advanced by the learned Advocate for the petitioner is that under the provisions of S. 31b of the BT and AL Act what is to be seen is whether as a result of an order passed for resumption a tenant will remain in possession of not less than half the area of the land leased to him. The submission made is that it is not each one of the lands that is leased out to the tenant that is taken into consideration under S. 31b, but all the lands together leased to the tenant at the same. time. It was submitted that if all the lands leased out to the tenant is taken into consideration, then, in the present case 14 acres and 17 guntas had been leased but as ordered by the learned Munsiff only 5 acres 6 guntas were awarded to the petitioner and the tenant will remain in possession of the land to the extent of not less than half and it will not contravene the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of holdings Act, 1947. In support of this submission, reliance was placed upon the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in marzban Rustomji v. Khusalbhai, 61 Bom. L. R. 294. where the provisions of S. 31b of the BT and AL Act were considered. At page 295 of the Report Vyas, J. , has stated as follows:" If we turn to the relevant provision of law contained in subsec. L. R. 294. where the provisions of S. 31b of the BT and AL Act were considered. At page 295 of the Report Vyas, J. , has stated as follows:" If we turn to the relevant provision of law contained in subsec. (1) of S. 31b, the law only lays down that the tenancy in no case shall be terminated in such a way as will result in leaving with a tenant, after termination, less than half the area of the land leased to him. Now, in this case it is to be borne in mind that the lease under which the petitioner leased out his lands to the tenants was only one transaction. There were no two distinct leases although the lands leased out were two survey numbers. The transaction was one, although the subject matter of the transaction was lands more than one. Bearing this position in mind, namely, that the lands leased out by the petitioner-landlord to the tenants measured 7 acres 12 guntas plus 2 acres 25 guntas, that is, in all 9 acres 37 guntas, it is necessary to remember that even if the possession of the entire S. No. 41012 measuring 2 acres 25 guntas has to be returned by the tenants to the petitioner landlord, even so the tenants would continue to remain in possession of much more than half of the lands originally leased out to them. They would still have the possession of 7 acres 12 guntas out of 9 acres 37 guntas of lands which were leased out to them. That being so, it is difficult to understand how it could be validly contended that the provisions of law contained in sub-sec. (1) of S. 31b of the Act would be violated by handing-over possession of the entire s. No. 410/2 to the petitioner-landlord. " ( 6 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner therefore submitted that having regard to the observations made by the High Court of Bombay relating to the interpretation of the section, the view taken by the appellate court that each of the lands has to be separately taken into consideration and found out as to whether the landlord will be entitled to claim possession of half share in each land, was plainly opposed to the language of s. 31 (1) (a) of the BT and AL Act and the decision referred to above. ( 7 ) I am in full agreement with this submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As stated by the High Court of Bombay, what is to be seen is as to whether as a result of an order passed either for resumption or for termination the tenant will remain in possession of half the area of the land leased to him. Under the section it is not required that each survey number should be taken separately. What is required to be done is that the lands leased out to the tenant at the same time have to be taken together into consideration and found out whether the granting of part of such lands would contravene the provisions of the bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. It is not necessary for the authority to take each survey number separately and try to find out as to whether half the area of each survey number can be given over to the landlord and whether not less than half the area would remain with the tenant. In my view, what is required to be seen is whether not less than half the area of the land leased out to the tenant remains with the tenant. The correct interpretation of the section is to take all the lands leased out to the tenant together and then find out as to whether as a result of the order of resumption under S. 16, (10b) the tenant would remain in possession of not less than half the area of the land leased. ( 8 ) IN the present case, the learned District Judge did not go into this aspect of the matter but took the view that each land had to be separately taken into consideration and on that basis allowed the appeal dismissing the landlord's application. Therefore, the orders passed by both the Courts below have to be and are set aside. The learned Munsiff will now re-hear the application and find out as to whether as a result of single lease the tenant was put in possession of all the three lands or was it by separate leases. Keeping in view the provisions of S. 31a (a) to (e) as also S. 31b of the BT and AL Act. The learned Munsiff will now re-hear the application and find out as to whether as a result of single lease the tenant was put in possession of all the three lands or was it by separate leases. Keeping in view the provisions of S. 31a (a) to (e) as also S. 31b of the BT and AL Act. All the other questions such as whether the landlord requires the land bona fide for his personal cultivation and the main source of income have all been answered in favour of the landlord and it is not necessary for the Courts to go into those questions over again. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .