( 1 ) THE Petitioner is a tenant who is in occupation of a land Survey No. 4a measuring 9 acres situate at Lad Chincholi, Aland Taluk. The respondent before me is the landlord. He filed a statement for resumption under S. 14 of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, 1961. During the enquiry, Counsel for the tenant took number of adjournments for adducing evidence. The case, ultimately, was posted for arguments on 30-10-1968. Again it was adjourned to 11-11-1968 and 23-11-1968. On the last date, the Counsel reported no instructions to the Tribunal and he was permitted to retire. The order permitting resumption of the entire land was passed by the Land Tribunal on 28-11-1968 holding that the land was required by the landlord for his bona fide personal cultivation. ( 2 ) IN the appeal preferred by the tenant before the District Judge, Gulbarga, it was contended on his behalf that the landlord does not require the land for his bona fide personal cultivation, that the income by the cultivation of the land of which he is entitled to resume is not the principal source of income for the maintenance and that there was no adequate opportunity afforded to him for adducing evidence. ( 3 ) THE learned District Judge rejected all the contentions and dismissed the appeal. On the last contention he held that the tenant had ample opportunity to lead evidence and his conduct disentitled him to give any more opportunity. On the first contention he held that the need of the landlord was bona fide and the land was required by him for his personal cultivation. On the second contention he said that it was not necessary for the landlord to prove that the income of the land sought to be resumed is the principal source of income by reason of the provisions of S. 44 (3) of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (briefly, "the hyderabad Tenancy Act" ). The correctness of this decision is mainly qustioned in the revision petition. ( 4 ) SECTION 44 of the said Act, so far as it is relevant, provides as follows:"s. 44 (1 ). Subject to tne provisions or sub-sec. The correctness of this decision is mainly qustioned in the revision petition. ( 4 ) SECTION 44 of the said Act, so far as it is relevant, provides as follows:"s. 44 (1 ). Subject to tne provisions or sub-sec. (8) a landholder who, on the date on which the Hyderabad Tenancy ana Agricultural lands (Amendment) Act 1904 comes into force, is not already cultivating personally an area equal to three times tne family holding for the local area concerned and who in good faith requires land leased out to a protected tenant lor cultivating personally may, notwithstanding anything contained in S. 19 of tne Act, terminate the tenancy and resume such land or portion of such land that would, together with the land which he is already cultivating personally, either as owner or protected tenant, be equal to three times the family holding, by making an application in the manner prescribed to the Collector or any other Officer whom the Government may from time to time authorise in this behalf. Provided that. . . . . . . . . . (2 ). . . . . . . . . . . (omitted as unnecessary ). (3) Nothing in sub-sec. (1) shall entitle the landholder to resume more than a family holding unless the income by the cultivation or such land will be the main source of income of the landholder for his maintenance. " (Rest of the sub-sections omitted as unnecessary ). Sri Murlidhara Rao, Counsel for the respondent said that S. 44 (3) is applicable to the proceedings for resumption of land in the Hyderabad area as it pertains to the extent of land to which the landlord is entitled to resume. That is also the reason found favour with the learned District judge. For me, it is unacceptable. In Basayya Shivayya Pujar v. Narayan shyastri Rama Shyastri, (1971) 2 Mys. L. J. 233, this Court held: "when an application made by a landlord under S. 14 in the bombay Area or the Hyderabad Area, as the case may be, comes up for decision before the Court, what it has to consider is, whether the landlord is entitled to resume any land from his tenant under the conditions laid down in S. 14 and sub-sec. (1) to (10) of S. 16 of the Act. (1) to (10) of S. 16 of the Act. If the landlord is so entitled to resume, the extent of the land resumable has to be determined in accordance with the provisions of Sections 31a, 31b and 31c of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands act, 1948 as inserted by Bombay Act 13 of 1956, in the Bombay area. Similarly, the extent of land resumable in the Hyderabad Area shall be determined in accordance with the restrictions and conditions specified in the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, as in force in the Hyderabad Area on the 1st of November, 1956. " ( 5 ) THE provisions of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act would be relevant only for the purpose of considering the extent of land resumable by the landlord and the resumption must always be subject to the conditions laid down by the provisions of S. 16 (1) to (10) of the Mysore Land Reforms act. ( 6 ) IN the Hyderabad Area, it is said that the landlord is entitled to resume to the extent of three times the family holding prescribed for the local area. Sub-sec. (3) of S. 44 of the Hyderabad Tenancy Act does not provide for the limit to which any landlord is entitled to resume. It only relaxes the conditions regarding the "principal source of income" in a case where the landlord wants to resume less than a family holding. The condition regarding the "principal source of income" is provided by S. 16 (9) of the Mysore Land Reforms Act and that will have to be satisfied by landlords of the Hyderabad Area in order to get a certificate for resumption of any land. ( 7 ) IN the result, this revision petition is allowed, the orders under revision are set aside and the learned Munsiff is directed to take the statement on file and dispose of the same in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the parties concerned. No costs. --- *** --- .