( 1 ) THIS is a landlord's revision petition against the order passed by the first Additional District Judge, Bangalore in L. R. Appeal No. 18 of 1971, affirming the order passed by the Munsiff, Doddaballapur in RLC. No. l of 1970. The petitioner is the landlord of the lands in question. He filed a statement under S. 14 read with S. 15 of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 for resumption of the lands from his tenant, the respondent. The court of first instance dismissed the petitioner's application on the ground that the petitioner has failed to prove that the income from the lands sought to be resumed forms the principal source of his income for his maintenance. That order has been affirmed in appeal by the learned District judge. Hence this revision petition. ( 2 ) SHRI H. S. Shankaranarayan, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner being a soldier, he is not required to satisfy the requirement of S. 16 (9) of the Act. Both th Courts have accepted the petitioner's case that he is a soldier. I have, therefore to proceed on the basis that the petitioner is a soldier. S. 15 of the Act is a special provision dealing with resumption of lands by soldiers and seamen. The same reads as follows:"resumption of land by soldiers and seamen (1) Where the landlord is a soldier or seamen (a) he shall be entitled to resume land to the extent of the ceiling area whether his tenant is a protected tenant or not; (b) he shall be liable to file the statement under sub-sec. (1) of s. 14 and his tenant shall be competent to make an application under sub-section (1) of Section 58, (1) in the case of a soldier in service in the Armed Forces of the union within one year from the date on which he is released from the armed Forces or is sent to the Reserve; (ii) in the case of the father, mother, spouse, child or grand child of a soldier, within one year from the date of the death of such soldier; (iii) in the case of a seaman, within one year from the date on which he ceased to be a seaman; (c) after a certificate is issued in respect of any land under sub-sec. (1) of S. 14, he shall be granted possession of such land as soon as may be after making an application for such possession, but the tenant shall not be dispossessed before the crops, if any, grown on such land by such tenants are harvested. (2) In respect of any land of which the landlord is a soldier or seaman, the provisions of Ss. 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 41 and Chapter iii shall, subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (1), be applicable mutatis mutandis. "sub-sec. (2) of S. 15 specifically states that S. 16 is one of the provisions that regulates the proceedings pertaining to resumption of lands by soldiers and seamen. Sub-sec. (2) of S. 15 states that the provisions mentioned therein including S. 16 shall regulate the proceedings pertaining to resumption of lands by soldiers and seamen. But. what was urged by the learned counsel for the pettioner is that because the petitioner happens to be a soldier, he is not required to establish that the income from the lands sought to be resumed forms the principal source of his income for his maintenance. The effect of sub-section (2) clearly is that the provisions of S. 16 will apply mutatis mutandis, subject only to the provisions of sub-sec. (1) of S. 15 of the Act. Sub-sec. (1) of S. 15 is not in any way inconsistent with sub-sec. (9) of S. 16 of the Act. As there is no inconsistency between sub-sec. (1) of S. 15 and sub-sec. (9) of S. 16, it is clear that the soldiers and seamen, who seek resumption of lands, have to sataisfy the requirements of sub-sec. (9) of S. 16 of the Act. ( 3 ) THE Court below, was, therefore right in dismissing the application of the petitioner on the ground that he has failed to prove that the income from the lands sought to be resumed is the principal source of his income for his maintenance, as required by S. 16 (9) of the Act. ( 4 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this revision petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .