NESARGI, J. ( 1 ) THE landlord Gopal Bagavant Kulkarni has filed this writ petition praying for quashing the order of the Tahsildar, Chikkodi, passed on 28- 8-1967 in TNC/586/1952, and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, chikcdi Division, Chikodi, in TNC/appeal-6/67 on 11-4-1968. He has further asked for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Tahsildar of Chikodi, to put him in possession of Re: Sy. No. 27/3 situate in Sadalaga village in the District of Belgaum. ( 2 ) THE few undisputed facts necessary for a decision in this writ petition may be briefly narrated as follows: the petitioner is the landlord of S. No. 23/3 of Sadalaga village, Chikodi taluka. The father of the respondents was a protected tenant of that land. The petitioner filed an application for eviction of the tenant and possession of the land on the ground that he required the same for bona fide personal cultivation, under the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands, Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay act ). Ultimately the matter reached this Court in CP. No. 185 of 1958. ( 3 ) THIS Court allowed the petition of the landlord and held that he was entitled to possession of the land from the protected tenant. The petitioner instituted eviction proceedings before the Tahsildar. In the mean-while the Mysore Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961 came into force. In view of S. 3 of that Act, no eviction in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in CP. No. 185 of 1958 could be ordered and the petitioner put in possession of the land. The petitioner, therefore, filed WP. No. 772 of 1962 in this Court praying for striking down of the mysore Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961, as unconstitutional. By the time the said writ petition came up for hearing, the said Act had been repealed by the coming into force of the Mysore land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). In view of this situation, this Court passed an order wherein it was held as follows:"in this writ petition the constitutionality of that Act was challenged when it was presented. But now that Act stands repealed, the question does not survive. In view of this situation, this Court passed an order wherein it was held as follows:"in this writ petition the constitutionality of that Act was challenged when it was presented. But now that Act stands repealed, the question does not survive. So the proper order for us to make would be to set aside the order made by the Mamlatdar and to direct him to proceed with the execution, reserving liberty for the tenant to contest the execution proceedings on the basis of such provisions of the mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961 which can be of assistance to him. The landlord would be at liberty to contend that those provisions are unconstitutional. " ( 4 ) THEREAFTER, the landlord-petitioner pursued the execution proceedings before the Tahsildar, Chikodi, and the respondents who are the heirs of the original protected tenant Maruthi, contended that in view of the provisions of the Act, especially Ss. 22 and 142 (1-A), they could not be evicted in spite of the order of this Court in CP. No. 185 of 1958. The tahsildar upheld the contention of the respondents observing that it was sound in view of the decision of this Court in Shado Abdul Bagwan v. Mohamad Hanif Dada Bagwan, (1966) 1 Mys. L. J. 686. The land-lord-petitioner preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi Division, Chikodi, and the assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal. ( 5 ) SRI G. D. Shirgurkar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner-landlord, urged that the line of decisions of this Court would show that the landlord-petitioner was entitled to continue to execute the order for eviction of respondents under the provisions of the Act though not under the provisions of the Bombay Act. He pointed out that the proceeding for eviction would be as per the provisions of S. 116 of the Act. Nextly he urged that the powers of the Deputy Commissioner have been delegated to the tahsildar and as such the Tahsildar was wrong in dismissing the application of the petitioner. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in krishna Narasimha Hegde v. Venkataraman Thimmayya Hegde, (1969) 1 Mys. L. J. 516. It is held in this decision that an application for eviction under the repealed bombay Act pending on the date when the Act came into operation has to be disposed of in accordance with Ss. 22 and 23 of the Act. L. J. 516. It is held in this decision that an application for eviction under the repealed bombay Act pending on the date when the Act came into operation has to be disposed of in accordance with Ss. 22 and 23 of the Act. In the said decision, the provision in S. 142 (1a) of the Act which reads as follows has been dealt with. " (1a): Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sec. (1) or in any law in force in any area of the State of Mysore at any time before the commencement of this Act, the first proviso to the said sub-section or any other provision of law shall not be applicable in so far as the said proviso or provision of law will enable any person to evict from any agricultural land any agriculturist protected from eviction from any land in his possession by the Mysore Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961, and no such agriculturist shall be liable to be evicted from such land except in accordance with the provisions of this Act. " ( 6 ) A reading of this decision makes it abundantly clear that the proceeding for eviction under the repealed Bombay Act was still pending when the act came into force. In the case on hand, that proceeding had come to an end by virtue of the order of this Court in CP. No. 185 of 1958. There was no proceeding for eviction under the Bombay Act pending when the act came into force. The only thing that was alive was the application of the landlord petitioner, filed before the Tahsildar, praying for restoration of possession of the land from the respondents to him in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in CP. No. 185 of 1958. At the most, what can be said to be pending was the execution proceeding resulting from the order passed by this Court in CP. No. 185 of 1958. The effect of S. 142 (1a) of the Act has been dealt with by a Bench of this Court in Shado Abdul bagwan's case (1 ). It is laid down therein as follows :"the protection from eviction afforded by sub-sec. No. 185 of 1958. The effect of S. 142 (1a) of the Act has been dealt with by a Bench of this Court in Shado Abdul bagwan's case (1 ). It is laid down therein as follows :"the protection from eviction afforded by sub-sec. (1a) of S. 142 of the Mysore Land Reforms Act would not be available to a tenant where he had already been evicted from the land in enforcement of an order of possession made in favour of the landlord. The purpose of S. 142 (1a) is to maintain the possession of a person who could have been evicted under the first proviso to S. 142 (1) without being applicable to a case where the person concerned has already been evicted and is no longer in possession. " ( 7 ) THE same is the view expressed by this Court in CP. No. 575 of 1970. It is laid down therein as follows:"if the tenant has not been evicted from the lands and he was entitled to the protection under the Mysore Tenants (Temporary Protection from Eviction) Act, 1961, the landlord cannot execute the order for eviction and he can obtain possession only in accordance with the provisions of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961. S. 22 of the said Act states that notwithstanding any decree or order by a court, no person shall be evicted from any land held by him as a tenant except in the manner provided under the Act. If the petitioner-tenant is in possession, he cannot be evicted by respondent-1 landlord, in view of the provisions of S. 22 read with S. 142 (1a) of the Mysore land Reforms Act, and the order of eviction against which this Civil petition has been preferred, would be infructuous. . . . . . His remedy, if any is to obtain possession in accordance with the provisions of the mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961. " ( 8 ) IT has been already pointed out that the ground on which the petitioner-landlord applied for possession of the land from the protected tenant maruthi was that he required the land for his bona fide personal cultivation. That is a ground now covered by S. 14 of the Act. The relevant portion of S. 14 (1) of the Act reads as follows:"14. Resumption of land from tenants. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Ss. That is a ground now covered by S. 14 of the Act. The relevant portion of S. 14 (1) of the Act reads as follows:"14. Resumption of land from tenants. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Ss. 22 and 23, but subject to the provisions of this section and of Ss. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 41, a landlord may, if he bona fide requries land, other than land referred to in the first prow viso to clause (29) of sub-sec. (A) of S. 2, or. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "section 22 (1) of the Act reads as follows:"22. Eviction of tenant for default, etc. (1) Notwithstanding any agreement, usage, decree or order of a Court of law, or anything contained in any enactment or law repealed by S. 142 or in any other law in force before the commencement of such enactment or law, and subject to the provisions of S. 14 no person shall be evicted from any land held by him as a tenant except on any of the following grounds, namely: (a) that the tenant has failed to pay the rent of such land on or before the due date during two consecutive years, provided the landlord has issued every year within three months after the due date a notice in writing to the tenant that he has failed to pay the rent for that year; (b) that the tenant has done any act which is permanently injurious to the land; (c) that the tenant has sub-divided, sub-let or assigned the land in contravention of Section 21; (d) that the tenant has failed to cultivate the land personally for a period of two consecutive years; (e) that the tenant has used such land for a purpose other than agriculture or allied pursuits: provided that no tenant shall be evicted under this sub-section unless the landlord has given six months' notice in writing informing the tenant of his decision to terminate the tenancy and the particulars of the ground for such termination and with'in that period the tenant has failed to remedy the breach for which the tenant is proposed to be evicted. " ( 9 ) IT is, therefore, clear that S. 14 of the Act operates notwithstanding the provisions contained in S. 22 of the Act. " ( 9 ) IT is, therefore, clear that S. 14 of the Act operates notwithstanding the provisions contained in S. 22 of the Act. A reading of S. 22 (1) of the Act excerpted above also makes it clear that Section 22 of the Act operates subject to the provisions of S. 14 of the Act. In this connection Sri G. D. Shirgurkar vehemently urged that when once there is an order of eviction passed under the Bombay Act and execution of the same was sought, the execution proceedings would continue under the provisions of the Act and, therefore, it could not be said that the order passed by this Court under the Bombay Act had become infructuous. He placed reliance on the decision in Venkataramana Govinda Hegde v. Gajanana Ganapathy hegde, (1970) 1 Mys. L. J. 23. What had happened therein was that a revision petition from proceedings for eviction under the Bombay Act on the ground of default in payment of rent, was pending at the time the Act was brought into force. Under those circumstances, it was held therein that the proceedings must be regarded as still pending and no order of eviction could be passed except in accordance with the provision of S. 23 (2) of the Act. Tn our opinion, this decision would have no application to the casp on hand because of the provisions contained in S. 23 of the Act. A reading of S. 22 (1) of the Act makes it manifest that only in the cases falling under Clauses (a) to (e), eviction could be ordered pursuant to an earlier order of eviction i. e. , passed prior to the coming into force of the Act. If the case is one not falling under any of them, notwithstanding the decree or order of a Court, no tenant can be evicted The ground that the land is required for bona fide personal cultivation of the landlord is not one of the grounds mentioned in Cl. (a) to (e) of S. 22 (1) of the Act. Even in regard to excepted cases mentioned in S. 22 (1) of the Act, a further exception is made in S. 23 (1) of the Act. ( 10 ) A reading of S. 22 (1) shows that in the cases excepted in Cls. (a) to (e) of S. 22 (1) of the Act. Even in regard to excepted cases mentioned in S. 22 (1) of the Act, a further exception is made in S. 23 (1) of the Act. ( 10 ) A reading of S. 22 (1) shows that in the cases excepted in Cls. (a) to (e), a proceeding for eviction could be taken provided a six months' notice in writing informing the tenant of the decision of the landlord to terminate the tenancy and the particulars of the ground for such termination, is given, and within that period the tenant has failed to remedy the breach for which the tenant is proposed to be evicted. Even when a proceeding is instituted after giving such notice, no eviction in view of S. 23 of the Act, could be ordered if rent came to be paid during the pendency of such proceeding. No clause analogous to these clauses is provided in regard to eviction ordered on the basis of bona fide personal cultivation, prior to the coming into force of the Act. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner would not be of any avail to the petitioner. ( 11 ) ALL that appears to be saved in favour of the petitioner is what is found, by virtue of the latter part of S. 142 (1a) of the Act. It saves his right to apply for possession on the ground of bona fide personal cultivation under Section 14 of the Act. In view of the foregoing reasons, we find no substance in this petition and dismiss the same. No order as to costs in the circumstances of this case. --- *** --- .