( 1 ) THIS revision petition preferred by a tenant of agricultural lands arises out of an order made by the Court of the Munsiff Hukeri, in proceedings instituted by respondent 1 for recovery of rent under S. 42 of the karnataka Land Reforms Act 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Principal act. The petitioner contended in his objections that respondent 1 is not his landlord and that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the panties. He filed I. A. II supported by an affidavit requesting the Court to decide as a preliminary issue, the question whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. ( 2 ) THE said application was rejected by the learned Munsiff summarily by an order made on 14-6-1973 which reads :"perused I. A. II and affidavit. Other side not called upon for objections. No merits in I. A.-II. Hence I. A.-II is rejected. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the above revision petition. When this revision petition was pending before this Court the Principal act was amended by Karnataka Act 1 of 1974 (hereinafter called the amendment Act) which made drastic amendments. The Principal Act before its amendment had provided for resumption of lands by landlords from their tenants within specified limits. (Vide S. 14 ). The forum for taking proceedings for resumption was the Court as defined, which was the Court of the Munsiff. S. 14 was delated by the Amendment Act. The forum for instituting proceedings for recovery of rent from a tenant was the Court. After the Amendment Act, the forum for instituting proceedings for recovery of rent is the Tahsildar Before the Amendment Act the forum for deciding certain issues was 'the Court. By the Amendment act the said forum has been changed and it is the Tribunal. ( 3 ) THE amendments made by the Amendment Act have been given retrospective effect. S. 91 of the Amendment Act prpvides for disposal of pending proceedings. By the Amendment act the said forum has been changed and it is the Tribunal. ( 3 ) THE amendments made by the Amendment Act have been given retrospective effect. S. 91 of the Amendment Act prpvides for disposal of pending proceedings. Sub-sec (1) of the said section provides that the provisions of the Principal Act as amended shall be applicable to all proceedings commenced before the date of the commencement of the Amendment act and pending before any Court, Tribunal or other authority as if the principal Act as amended was in force when the right accrued or liability was incurred and every Court, Tribunal or other authority shall deal with the proceedings accordingly. Sub-sec (2) provides that all applications, statements and proceedings including execution proceedings and proceeding in appeal under the Principal Act relating to resumption of land pending before any Court immediately before the date of commencement of the amendment Act shall not have any effect and shall abate. Sub-sec (3) provides for transfer of all applications or proceedings other than those referred to in sub-sec (2) pending before any Court or authority immediately before the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, to the tahsildar or the Appellate Authority. ( 4 ) ON the date when the Amendment Act came into force there were revision petitions pending before this Court arising out of proceedings for resumption of land as well as out of proceedings other than resumption proceedings. This Court held that all revision petitions arising out of proceedings for resumption of lands abate and the applications for resumption shall stand dismissed (vide Narayana Jetti Patagar v. Ishwar Ganapa hegde (1974) 2 Karlj. 59 . . ( 5 ) THE effect of sub-sec (3) of S. 91 came up for consideration before this Court in Shantarajiah v. Kade Gowda, in which Nesargi, J. held that revision petitions arising out of proceedings other than those referred to in sub-sec ( (2) stand transferred to the concerned Divisional Commr. It was argued before Nesargi, J. that such an interpretation would be rendering the judgments passed by the Dist Judges revisable by the Divl commrs which was foreign to our system of jurisprudence. That argument was noticed but was rejected as devoid of any force according to S. 91 (3) as interpreted in Shantarojiah's case (1974) 2 Karlj. 142. It was argued before Nesargi, J. that such an interpretation would be rendering the judgments passed by the Dist Judges revisable by the Divl commrs which was foreign to our system of jurisprudence. That argument was noticed but was rejected as devoid of any force according to S. 91 (3) as interpreted in Shantarojiah's case (1974) 2 Karlj. 142. , all appeals pending before Dist Courts against judgments or orders of the courts of Munsiffs stand transferred to the concerned Asst Commrs and the revision petitions against the judgments or orders of Dist Courts pepding in this Court stand transferred to the concerned Divl Commrs. When this revision petition came up for hearing before one of us (Hon'ble Chief Justice) on 5-4-1974, the case was referred to a Division bench as S. 91 (3) as interpreted by Nesargi, J. would have far-reaching consequences. Notice was issued to the learned Advocate General 83 the question raised is one of considerable importance. ( 6 ) TO-DAY, when the matter came up for hearing, the learned Advocate general who appeared in response to the notice submitted that Karnataka act 31 of 1974 published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 23-9-1974 has substituted a new sub-section for sub-sec (3) of S. 91 in the Amendment act and therefore, the basis of the judgment in Shantajiah's case (2) has been removed with retrospective effect and the question whether the legislature can prpvide for an executive authority to sit in appeal or revision over the judgments and orders of Courts subordinate to the High court does not survive. Sub-sec (3) of S. 91 substituted by S. 5 of the act 31 of 1974 reads : (3) All applications or proceedings other than those referred to in sub-sec (2) which are required to be decided or disposed of by the tahsildar or the Tribunal specified in the Principal Act as amended by this Act, (a) pending before any Munsiff Court immediately before the date of commencement of this Act shall with effect from that date stand transferred to the Tahsildar or the Tribunal, as the case may be and shall be disposed of by him or it as if they had been instituted or commenced before him or it, (b) having been disposed of by the Munsiff Court, are pending in appeal or revision, such appeal or revision shall abate without prejudice to the question involved in the applications or proceedings giving rise to such appeal or revision, being commenced afresh before the Tahsildar or the Tribunal as the case may be, as if the amendments made by this Act to the Principal Act were in force at the time the right for making such applications or commencing such proceedings accrued. ( 7 ) THE meaning of S. 91 (3) as now substituted is clear and gives no scope fpr any doubt. All applications or proceedings other than those falling under sub-sec (2) of S. 91 pending before any Munsiff Court immediately before the, date of commencement of the Amendment Act stand transferred to the tahsildar or the Tribunal as the case may be where the matters have been disposed of by the Munsiff Court but are pending in appeal or revision, such appeal or revision abates without prejudice to the question involved in the applications or proceedings giving rise to such appeal or revision petition, being commenced afresh before the Tahsildar or the Tribunal as the case may be as if the amendments made to the Principal Act were in force at the time the right for making such applications or commencing such proceedings accrued. That that is the clear effect of sub-sec (3) of S. 91 was conceded by the learned Counsel appearing on either side and the learned advocate General. ( 8 ) IN the instant case, the proceedings pending before the Court of the munsiff, Hukeri, in RRC. 543 1972 stand transferred to the Tahsildar, hukeri. That that is the clear effect of sub-sec (3) of S. 91 was conceded by the learned Counsel appearing on either side and the learned advocate General. ( 8 ) IN the instant case, the proceedings pending before the Court of the munsiff, Hukeri, in RRC. 543 1972 stand transferred to the Tahsildar, hukeri. The order made on I. A.-II by the learned Munsiff stands vacated without prejudice to the right of the petitioner herein to move the Tahsildar to decide the issue of the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The order of the Munsiff rejecting I. A.-II does not conclude the matter and the Tahsildar is not bpund by the same. Accordingly, we order that the above revision petition abates without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to make an application before the concerned Tahsildar to decide issue as a preliminary issue. Ordered accordingly. No costs. ORDER ON BEING SPOKEN TO. November 19, 1974: at the conclusion of the order, we have stated that the order of the munsiff made on I. A.-II stands vacated without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to make an application be fore the Tahsildar to decide the issue of the existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. This statement is liable to be construed as our having decided that the Tahsildar is competent to decide as to who is the owner of this land. We should not be under stood as having expressed any definite opinion on this question. It is sufficient if we state that the order made on i. A.-II by the learned Munsiff stands vacated and that the CRP abates. We, therefore, direct that for the last two paragraphs in our order, the following shall be substituted : the proceedings before the Court of the Munsiff, Hukeri, in RRC. 543 of 1972 stand transferred to the Tahsildar, Hukeri. The order made by the learned Munsiff on I. A.-II stands vacated and this CRP abates. Ordered accordingly. No costs. --- *** --- .