( 1 ) THIS is a landlord's revision petition arising out of an application filed by him under S. 14 of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Mysore Act) for resumption of the two lands R. S. Nos. 150 and 153 measuring 1 acre 25 guntas and 1 acre 32 guntas respectively of Wadagaon village in Belgaum Taluk, from the respondent who is the protected tenant of the lands. The case of the petitioner is that he bona fide requires the lands for cultivating personally. The Land Tribunal at Belgaum dismissed the application holding that the petitioner has failed to prove that he is the landlord. The order of the Land Tribunal has been affirmed in appeal by the District Court at Belgaum. ( 2 ) SHRI G. D. Shirgurkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Courts below committed an error of law in holding that the petitioner is not the landlord. In the application filed by the petitioner, it is stated that the petitioner is the landlord of the two lands held by the respondent as a protected tenant. The respondent did not controvert these averments of the petitioner. The respondent did not, at any stage, state that the petitioner is not the landlord. Hence, no issue arose for consideration on the question whether the petitioner is the landlord of the two lands or not. What is not disputed need not be proved. The Courts below ought to have proceeded on the basis that the petitioner is the landlord of the two lands. The finding of the Courts below that the petititioner has failed to prove that he is the landlord of the two lands is therefore set aside. As the Courts below have not applied their mind to the other conditions governing resumption of the lands, the case has to be remitted back to the Court of first instance for fresh disposal in accordance with law. ( 3 ) BUT, Sri W. K. Joshi, the learned Counsel for the respondent, submitted that as it is not clear as to which are all the provisions of law that govern an application for resumption of lands in the Bombay area, the attention of the Court below may be drawn to the provisions of law that govern the application for resumption. As this problem is likely to arise in large number of cases, it is necessary to indicate the provisions that govern applications for resumption of lands in the Bombay area. ( 4 ) RIGHT to resumption of land is a statutory right conferred by the Act. ( 5 ) S. 14 of the Mysore Act makes provision for resumption of land from tenants. It provides for a statement being filed within the prescribed time to the Court (formerly Tribunal) by the landlord for resumption of land other than land referred to in the first proviso to Clause (29) of sub-sec. (A) of S. 2 of the Act, if he bona fide requires the land for cultivating personally or for any non-agricultural purpose. After the requisite statement is filed, the Court is required to hold an enquiry and determine the land or lands which the landlord is entitled to resume, after giving an opportunity to be heard to the landlord, the tenants and other persons that may be affected and having due regard to contiguity, fertility and fair distribution of lands. After determining the land or lands which the landlord is entitled to resume, the Court is required to issue a cerificate to the effect that the land or lands specified has been reserved for resumption. After securing the necessary certificate the landlord has to make an application within the prescribed time for possession of the lands specified in the certificate. The resumption of the land by the landlord is subject to the provisions of Ss. 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 20 and 41 of the Act. S. 16 of the Act prescribes the conditions restricting resumption of land under S. 14. The said provision reads as follows:"s. 16.-The right of a landlord to resume for cultivating the land personally under S. 14, shall be subject to the following conditions, namely: - (1) If the landlord owns land not exceeding two basic holdings he shall be entitled to resume one half of the land leased to the tenant: provided that the right to resume by such landlord shall be subject to the condition that an the case of a protected tenant, such tenant, shall be left with at least one standard acre of the land actually held by him, whichever is less. (2) If the landlord owns land exceeding two basic holdings, he shall be entitled to resume one-half of the area leased to the tenant provided that the total area resumed by the landlord does not exceed three family holdings. (3) No landlord who has been cultivating personally land exceeding three family holdings shall be entitled to resume any land leased. (4) The right to resume land under Clauses (1) to (3) shall be subject to the further condition that the land resumed from all the tenants holding under the landlord together with the extent of land, if any, cultivated by the landlord personally and any non-resumable land held by him shall not exceed three family holdings. (5) In respect of lands cultivated with plantation crops, the landlord shall not be entitled to resume more than one half of the land leased to a tenant. (6) If more tenancies than one are held under the same landlord, then the landlord shall be entitled to resume land only from tenants whose tenancy or tenancies are the shortest in point of duration: provided that the landlord shall be entitled to resume lands held by protected tenants only if the required extent of land cannot be resumed from tenants other than protected tenants: provided further that where such tenancy or tenancies shortest in point of duration shall on resumption leave with the tenants land in extent which will be less than a basic holding, the resumption shall be made in respect of tenancy or tenancies next longer in point of duration. (7) The right to resume land by the landlord, other than a landlord owning land not exceeding two basic holdings, shall be subject to the further condition that in the case of protected tenants, each protected tenant shall be left with a basic holding or the land actually held by him, whichever is less. (8) The right to resume land from any tenant shall be exerci- sable under S. 14 only once. (9) The income by the cultivation of the land of which he is entitled to resume shall be the principal source of income for the main tenance of the landlord. (10) If as a result of the resumption of land under S. 14, a fragment is created, the person entitled to the larger part of the land shall be entitled to the fragment also. (10) If as a result of the resumption of land under S. 14, a fragment is created, the person entitled to the larger part of the land shall be entitled to the fragment also. (10a) If any person has after the 18th November 1961 and before the appointed day transferred any land, otherwise than by partition, then, in calculating the extent of land owned by such person for purpose of the preceding clauses, the area so transferred shall be taken into consideration, and land exceeding the resumable area as calculated shall be deemed to be non-resumable land, and such person shall not be entitled to resume such non-resumable land. Explanation:-For purposes of this clause, a land shall be deemed to have been transferred, if it has been transferred by act of parties (whether by sale gift, mortgage with possession, exchange, lease or any other disposition) made inter vivos. (10b) Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (1) to (10) (both inclusive), or S. 142, the extent of land, if any, resumable, by any landlord in Bombay Area, shall be subject to the restrictions and conditions specified in S. 31a, 31b and 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 of 1956), notwithstanding the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy (Suspension of Provisions and Amendment) Act, 1957 (Mysore Act 13 of 1957 ). (10c) Notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (1) to (10), (both inclusive), or S 142. the extent of land, if any, resumable, by any landlord in the Hyderabad Area, shall be subject to the restrictions and conditions specified in the Hvderabad Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act, 1950, as in force in the Hyderabad Area on the 1st November 1956. (11) No landlord who at any time before the appointed day had resumed land from any tenant for personal cultivation under the bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, or the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, shall be entitled toresume again under S. 14 any land left with the same tenant. "it is by Mysore Act 14 of 1965 that sub-sees. (10a), (10b) and (10c) were added to S. 16 of the Act. Sub-sec. (10b) was further amended by mysore Act 11 of 1968. Sub-sec. (10c) of S. 16 governs applications for resumption of land in the Hyderabad area whereas sub-sec. "it is by Mysore Act 14 of 1965 that sub-sees. (10a), (10b) and (10c) were added to S. 16 of the Act. Sub-sec. (10b) was further amended by mysore Act 11 of 1968. Sub-sec. (10c) of S. 16 governs applications for resumption of land in the Hyderabad area whereas sub-sec. (10b) of S. 16 governs applications for resumption of land only in the Bombay area. Having regard to the restrictions in regard to the extent of land or lands resumable by the landlords in the Bombay and Hyderabad Areas under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and the Hyd. Ten and Agri. Lands Act, 1950 and the corresponding benefits flowing therefrom in favour of the tenants, the Legislature, with a view to preserve those benefits, introduced sub-sees. (10b) and (10c) in the Act. S. 16 prescribes the conditions restricting resumption of land under S. 14 of the Act. The clauses of S. 16 that govern applications for resumption in the State of Mysore other than in the Bombay and Hyderabad areas are clauses (1) to (10), (10a) and (11 ). So far as Bombay area is concerned, clause (10b) of S. 16 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in clauses (1) to (10) or S. 142 by which the Bombay tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the 'bombay Act') was repealed, the extent of land, if any resumable by a landlord in the Bombay area shall be subject to the restrictions and conditions specifiedd in Ss. 31a, 31b and 31c of the Bombay Act as amended by Bombay Act 13 of 1956 notwithstanding the provisions of the Bombay tenancy (Suspension of Provisions and Amendment) Act, 1957. It is clear from the language of clause (10b) of S. 16 that to the extent of inconsistency between clauses (1) to (10) of S. 16 of the Mysore Act and Ss. 31a, 31b and 31c of the Bombay Act in so far as the said inconsistency pertains to the extent of land resumable by a landlord in the Bombay area, it is the provisions of Ss. 31a, 31b and 31c of the Bombay Act that prevail over the corresponding provisions contained in clauses (1) to (10) of S. 16 of the Mysore Act. Among several conditions restricting resumption of land contained in Cls. 31a, 31b and 31c of the Bombay Act that prevail over the corresponding provisions contained in clauses (1) to (10) of S. 16 of the Mysore Act. Among several conditions restricting resumption of land contained in Cls. (1) to (10) of S. 16 of the Mysore Act, there is one set of conditions which relates only to the extent of land that a landlord can resume. Similarly among several restrictions contained in Ss. 31a, 31b and 31c of the Bombay Act, only some of them relate to the extent of land that a land can resume. The clear effect of S. 16 (10b) of the mysore Act is that the provisions of clauses (1) to (10) of S. 16 which relate to the extent of land that a landlord can resume do not govern resumption of land in the Bombay area and that the extent of land which a landlord can resume in the Bombay area is governed bv the conditions contained in Ss. 31a, 31b and 31c of the Bombay Act. That is the view which a Division Bench of our Court has taken in Basayya Shivayya pujar v. Narayan Shayastri, 1971 2 Mys. L. J. 233. The said case arose out of a reference made by the District Judge of Dharwar under S. 118 of the Act. Answering the said reference, this is what Justice Govinda Bhat, speaking for the Bench observed:" Our answer to the reference is that in a case arising in the bombav Area under S. 14 of the Act, the provisions of sub-sec. (1) to (10) of S. 16 have to be taken into consideration except with regard to the extent of land resumable by the landlord and that the extent of land resumable has to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Ss. 31a, 31b and 31c of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, as inserted by Bombay Act of 1956. " ( 6 ) NOW that there is a clear exposition of the effect of clause (10b) of S. 16 of the Mysore Act by a Division Bench of this Court, the only aspect that survives for consideration in this case is. as to which are the provisions contained in clauses (1) to (10) of the Mysore Act and as to which are the conditions and restrictions contained in Ss. as to which are the provisions contained in clauses (1) to (10) of the Mysore Act and as to which are the conditions and restrictions contained in Ss. 31a, 31b and 31c of the Bombay Act that govern an application for resumption filed under S. 14 of the Mysore Act for resumption of land in the Bombay area such of those provisions contained in clauses (1) to (10) of S. 16 that relate to the extent of land that a landlord can resume, do not govern an application for resumption of land in the Bombay Area. So far as the extent of land which a landlord is entitled to resume in the Bombay area is concerned, the same is regulated only by the conditions found in Ss. 31a, 31b and 31c of the Bombay Act. Clauses (1) to (5) and Clause (7) at s. 16 are provisions clearly regulating the extent of land which a landlord can resume under S. 14 of the Mysore Act. Clause (6) of S. 16 contains two provisos. The said clause provides that if more tenancies than one are held under the same landlord, then the landlord shall be entitled to resume land only from tenants whose tenancy or tenancies are the shortest in point of duration. The effect of this clause is that the landlord cannot resume lands from tenants whose tenancies are longer in point of duration if the landlord can secure the extent of land which he is entitled to resume from tenants whose tenancy or tenancies are the shortest in point of duration. The principal provision in Cl. (6) , which only regulates the rights of several tenants under the same landlord, has not any effect at regulating the total extent of land which a landlord is entitled to resume. The same is the effect of the first proviso to clause (6) of section 16 which states that the landlord shall be entitled to resume lands held by protected tenants only if the required extent of land cannot be resumed from tenants other than protected tenants. All that the first proviso means is that the lands held by protected tenants need not be resumed if the landlord can secure the total extent of land which he is entitled to resume from tenants other than protected tenants. All that the first proviso means is that the lands held by protected tenants need not be resumed if the landlord can secure the total extent of land which he is entitled to resume from tenants other than protected tenants. Though the first proviso to S. 16 gives certain special rights to the protected tenants, the same does not in any way affect the extent of land which the landlord is entitled to resume. The last proviso to clause (6) of S. 16 states that where tenancy or tenancies shortest in point of duration shall on resumption leave with the tenants land in extent which will be less than a basic holding, the resumption shall be made in respect of the tenancy or tenancies next in point of duration. The clear effect of the last proviso to clause (6) of S. 16 is that the land held by a tenant whose tenancy is shortest in point of duration should not be resumed, if as a result of resumption the land left with the tenant will be less than a bask holding. In such an event, resumption has to be made only in respect of tenancy or tenancies next longer in point of duration. The last proviso to clause (6) of S. 16, therefore, regulates the total extent of land which the landlord is entitled to resume. I am, therefore, of opinion that the last proviso to clause (6) of S. 16 of the Mysore Act does not govern an application made by a landlord for resumption of land in the Bombay Area. Clause (8) of S. 16 provides that the right to resume land from any tenant shall be exercisable under S. 14 only once. The said provision has obviously no reference to the extent of land which a landlord can resume. The same is the position in regard to clause (9) of S. 16, which provides that the income by the cultivation of the land of which he is entitled to resume shall be the principal source of income for the maintenance of the landlord. Clause (10) provides that if as a result of resumption of land under S. 14, a fragment is created, the person entitled to the larger part of the land shall be entitled to the fragment also. This provision also does not regulate the extent of land which the landlord is entitled to resume. Clause (10) provides that if as a result of resumption of land under S. 14, a fragment is created, the person entitled to the larger part of the land shall be entitled to the fragment also. This provision also does not regulate the extent of land which the landlord is entitled to resume. It only provides for the consequence that should follow if as a result of resumption of land under S. 14, a fragment is created. The said provision is complementary to the provisions contained in the Mysore Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966. As clause (10) does not regulate the extent of land but only provides for the consequences that should follow, if as a result of resumption a fragment is created, the said clause does govern an application for resumption by landlord of land in the Bombay area. From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the only clauses of S. 16 of the Mysore Act that govern an application for resumption of land in the Bombay area are clause (6), except the last proviso, clauses (8), (9), (10), (10a) and (11 ). ( 7 ) AS already mentioned, in view of S. 16 (10b) of the Mysore Act, the extent of land resumable by a landlord in the Bombay area is governed by the provisions contained in Ss. 31a, 31b and 31c of the Bombay act, as amended by Bombay Act 13 of 1956, notwithstanding the provisions contained in Mysore Act 13 of 1957. Reference to Ss. 31a, 31b and 31c of the Bombay Act becomes necessary only for the limited purpose of ascertaining the extent of land which a landlord in the Bombay area is entitled to resume. The provisions of Ss. 31a. 31b and 31c of the Bombay Act read as follows:" 31a: The right of a landlord to terminate a tenancy for cultivating the land personally under S. 31 shall be subject to the following conditions : (a) If the landlord at the date on which the notice is given and on the date on which it expires has no other land of his own or has not been cultivating personally any other land, he shall be entitled to take possession of the land leased to the extent of a ceiling area. (b) If the land cultivated by him personally is less than a ceiling area, the landlord shall be entitled to take possession of so much area of the land leased as will be sufficient to make up the area in his possession to the extent of a ceiling area. (c) The income by the cultivation of the land of which he is entitled to take possession is the principal source of income for maintenance. (d) The land leased stands in the record of rights on the 1st day of January 1952 or during the period between the said date and the appointed day in the name of the landlord himself or anv of his ancestors, or if the landlord is a member of a joint family, in the name of a member of such family. (e) If more tenancies than one are held under the same landlord, then the landlord shall be competent to terminate only the tenancy or tenancies which are the shortest in point of duration. 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 of the land leased to him, or (2) in such a manner as will result in a contravention of the provisions of the 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, or (3) If the tenant has become a member of a co-operative farming society and so long as he continues to be such member. 31c. The tenancy of any land left with the tenant after the termination of the tenancy under S. 31 shall not at any time afterwards be liable to termination again on the ground that the landlord bona fide requires that land for personal cultivation. "clauses (a) and (b) of S. 31a have to be read together in order to ascertain the extent of land which the landlord is entitled to resume in- the bombay area. The reference to the date on which the notice is given and the date on which it expires in clause (a) have, therefore, to be ignored. "clauses (a) and (b) of S. 31a have to be read together in order to ascertain the extent of land which the landlord is entitled to resume in- the bombay area. The reference to the date on which the notice is given and the date on which it expires in clause (a) have, therefore, to be ignored. As the expression 'ceiling area' has been used in S. 31a of the Bombay act, we have necessarily to advert to S. 5 of the Bombay Act in order to ascertain the meaning of 'ceiling area'. S. 5 of the Bombay Act reads as follows:" 5 (1 ). For the purposes of this Act, the ceiling area of lands shall be- (a) 48 acres of jirayat land, 'or (b) 24 acres of seasonally irrigated land or paddy or rice land, or (c) 12 acres of perennially irrigated land. (2) Where the land held by a person consists of two or more kinds of land specified in sub-sec. (1), the ceiling area of such holding shall be determined on the basis of one acre of perennially irrigated land being equal to two acres of seasonally irrigated land or paddy or rice land, or four acres of jirayat land. "the clear effect of S. 31a is that the maximum extent of land which a landlord in the Bombay area is entitled to resume is the extent of a ceiling area as defined in S. 5 of the Bombay Act. If the landlord has no other land of his own and has not been cultivating personally any other land, he shall be entitled to resume land or lands leased to the tenant or tenants to the extent of ceiling area. If the land cultivated by the landlord personally is less than the ceiling area, the landlord shall be entitled to resume so much of land as will be sufficient to make up the area in his possession to the extent of the ceiling area. It is only in this manner that the conditions specified in clauses (a) and (b) of S. 31a of the Bombay act that govern an application for resumption of land in the Bombay Area clauses (c), (d) and (e) of S. 31a of the Bombay Act have to be ignored altogether, as they do not regulate the extent of land. S. 31b contains three clauses. S. 31b contains three clauses. While dealing with an application for resumption under s. 14 of the Mysore Act question of terminating a tenancy does not arise. The reference to termination of tenancy under S. 31b of the Bombay Act has to be ignored. S. 31b has to be looked into only for the limited purpose of ascertaining the conditions, if any, found therein that have reference to the extent of land which a landlord is entitled to resume. The effect of claused) of S. 31b is that resumption should not be made in such a manner as will result in leaving with the tenant after resumption less than half the area of the land leased to him. To that extent Cl. (1) of s. 31b has to govern an application for resumption of land in the Bombay area. The resumption should not be ordered in such a manner as will result in leaving with the tenant land less than half the area of the land leased to him. Clause (2) of S. 31b of the Bombay Act is analogous to clause (11) of S. 16 of the Mysore Act and does not in any way regulate the extent of land which the landlord is entitled to resume. That provision was made in order to give effect to the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. That Act has since been repealed by the Mysore Prevention of Fragmentation of consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966. Clause (3) of S. 31b is similar to s. 18 of the Mysore Act. The said provision is not one which regulates the extent of land which the landlord is entitled to resume. It is therefore clear that clauses (2) and (3) of S. 31b of the Bombay Act do not govern an application for resumption of land in the Bombay area and that only clause (1) has to be taken into consideration in the manner suggested above. S. 31c of the Bombay Act provides that the tenancy of any land left with the tenant after the termination of the tenancy under S. 31 shall not at any time afterwards be liable to termination again on the ground that the landlord bona fide requires that land for personal cultivation. The said provision is analogous to clauses (8) and (11) of S. 16 of the Mysore act. The said provision is analogous to clauses (8) and (11) of S. 16 of the Mysore act. The said provision does not in any manner regulate the extent of the land which a landlord is entitled to resume. Hence, S. 31c of the bombay Act has to be ignored, while considering an application for resumption of land in the Bombay area. ( 8 ) FROM the foregoing discussion, if follows that an application for resumption of land in the Bombay area is governed by the provisions contained in Ss. 14; 15; clause (6) excluding the last proviso, clauses (8); (9); (10); (10a); and (11) of S. 16; Ss. 17; 18; 19; 20 and 41 of the Mysore land Reforms Act, 1961 and clauses (a) and (b) of S. 31a and clause (1) of s. 31b read with S. 5 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this revision petition is allowed, the orders passed by the Courts below are set aside and the case is remitted back to the Court of first instance for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in the course of this order, after giving an opportunity to both the parties to lead such evidence as they choose to lead in support of their respective contentions. No costs. --- *** --- .