GOVINDA BKAT, J. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition preferred by a landlord arises out of his application for resumption of land made under S. 14 (1) of the Mysore Land Reforms act, 1961), hereinafter called 'the Act'. The petitioner hereinafter called 'the landlord is the owner of an agricultural land bearing S. No. 52 measuring 29 acres and 19 guntas of Lingadhai village of Bijapur District. He filed the application tor resumption from the 1st respondent hereinafter called 'the tenant' who resisted the application on the ground, inter alia, that the landlord does not bona tide require the land tor cultivating personally because he carries on money lending and provision business and that the purpose of resumption is to sell the resumed land at a higher price. The land Tribunal, Badami, accepted the contention of the tenant that the landlord carries on money-lending and provision business and rejected the application for resumption on the ground that the landlord does not bona fide require the land for cultivating personally. On the appeal preferred by the landlord, the Appellate Authority, bijapur (District Judge), reversed the finding of the Land Tribunal that the landlord carries on business; but it dismissed the appeal taking the view that the landlord does not bona fide require the land for cultivating personally as he is past 60 years of age and his children are minors and further, he had not made any attempt at resumption for the past about 30 years when he could have done so under the Bombay Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Aggrieved by the said decision of the Appellate authority, the landlord has preferred the above writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition, the landlord died and his legal representatives have come on. record. The question is, whether the order of the Appellate Authority "suffers from any error of law apparent on the record. ( 2 ) IN the objections filed before the Land Tribunal, two circumstances were urged by the tenant in support of his contention that the landlord does not bona fide require the land, viz. , (1) that the landlord carries on money lending business and business in provisions and (2) that the motive of the resumption sought is to sell the land at a higher price. , (1) that the landlord carries on money lending business and business in provisions and (2) that the motive of the resumption sought is to sell the land at a higher price. Although the Land Tribunal accepted the contention of the tenant that the landlord carries on the business of money lending etc. , that finding was reversed by the Appellate Authority. Thereafter, the Appellate Authority relied on certain circumstances not urged in the pleadings. Not only that, those circumstances are wholly irrelevant for the purpose of determining the question whether the application of the landlord for resumption has to be allowed or not. The fact that the landlord is past 60 years and has no major sons is irrelevant for deciding the question at issue. The expression 'to cultivate personally' has been defined in S. 2 (11) thus:"2 (11 ). ' to cultivate personally ' means to cultivate land on one's own account (i) by one's labour, or (ii) by the labour of any member of one's family, or (iii) by hired labour or by servants on wages payable in cash or kind, but not in crop share, under the personal supervision of oneself or by member of one's family. Explanation I. Any of the persons mentioned in proviso (b) to sub-sec. (1) of S. 5 shall be deemed to cultivate the land personally if such land is cultivated by servants or by hired labour. (Explanations II and III omitted as unnecessary ). . . . " ( 3 ) THERE is no bar to a landlord cultivating his land by hired labour or by servants on wages payable in cash or kind. Cultivation by employment of hired labour is also 'personal cultivation' as defined under the Act. The fact that the landlord had not applied for possession under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 is also wholly irrelevant. If that was a relevant consideration, the Act would not have provided for any resumption of land from tenants in the Bombay Area of the State. ( 4 ) THE object of the Act is to put an end to the relationship of landlord and tenant in the entire State. Leases are ordinarily prohibited except in cases specified in S. 5 Applications for resumption have to be made within the time specified in sub-sec. (2) of S. 14. ( 4 ) THE object of the Act is to put an end to the relationship of landlord and tenant in the entire State. Leases are ordinarily prohibited except in cases specified in S. 5 Applications for resumption have to be made within the time specified in sub-sec. (2) of S. 14. All the non-resumable lands determined by the Tribunals vest in the State Government with effect from the date notified under S. 44. Thereafter, the tenants are registered as occupants of land under S. 45. In short, where the landlord does not make an application under S. 14 or fails to obtain an order for resumption, he altogether loses his right in the non-resumable land and his right vests in the State Government under S. 44. For the extinguishment of their rights in the lands, the landlords have to be paid compensation in the manner provided under Ss. 47 and 51. If the amount payable exceeds Rs. 2,000 the amount upto Rs. 2,000 alone is payable in cash and the rest in bonds. Where the income of the land constitutes the main source of income for the maintenance of the landlord, the extinguishment of his rights is bound to cause great hardship. In order to mitigate such hardship the Act has provided for resumption under S. 14. That right is however subject to severe restrictions contained in Ss. 14 and 16. One of the conditions restricting resumption is that the income by cultivation of the land of which the landlord is entitled to resumption shall be the principal source of income for his maintenance. If after resumption the landlord fails to cultivate personally, he is liable to surrender the land to the State Government under s. 20 of the Act. He cannot also transfer the land resumed within six years from such resumption by virtue of S. 19 of the Act. If the restrictions laid down under S. 16 are satisfied by the landlord, it is difficult to envisage a case where the application can be rejected on the ground that he does not bona fide require the land for cultivating personally. If the landlord satisfies all the conditions requisite to allow resumption, it has to be presumed that he bona fide requires land for cultivating personally. Then it is for the tenant to show that the requirement by the landlord of the land is not bona fide. If the landlord satisfies all the conditions requisite to allow resumption, it has to be presumed that he bona fide requires land for cultivating personally. Then it is for the tenant to show that the requirement by the landlord of the land is not bona fide. If the tenant fails to prove the want of bona fides, then the application cannot be rejected on the ground that the landlord does not bona fide require land for cultivating personally. Since the decision of the Appellate Authority holding that the landlord does not require the land bona fide for personal cultivation rests wholly on an erroneous view of the law, that decision is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we allow this writ petition, reverse the order of the Appellate Authority and direct the Munsiff's Court, Badami to dispose of the landlord's application in the light of this order. In the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .