Jagannatha Shetty, J.
1. The common petitioner in these petitions is admittedly a tenant of the land bearing S. No: 290 of Koppa Village. Maddur Taluk. The land was annexed to a village office held by the respondents. All village offices in the State of Mysore were abolished by Section 4 of the Mysore Village Offices Abolition Act, 1962, ('the Act'). Section 5 provides for re-grant of the land to the holder of the village office. Section 6 provides for re-grant to authorised holders and Section 7 provides for eviction of an unauthorised holder or re-grant to him in certain circumstances. Section 8 is an important one, in so far as these petitions are concerned. It is set out below:--
'8. Application of Tenancy Law.--If any land granted or continued in respect of or annexed to a village office by the State has been lawfully leased and such lease is subsisting on the appointed date, the provisions of the tenancy law for the time being in force in that area in which the land is situate shall apply to the said lease and the rights and liabilities of the person to whom such land is granted under Section 5. 6 or 7 and his tenant or tenants shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be governed by the provisions of the said tenancy law.
Explanation.-- For the purpose of this section, the expression 'land' shall have the meaning as assigned to it in the tenancy law referred to above.'
2. We now come to the events leading to the petitions. Respondents filed an application under Section 42 of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, for recovery of rent said to be due from the petitioner for the years 1967-68 and 1968-69. They also filed a statement under Section 14 (1) of the said Act, seeking resumption of the said land from the petitioner.
3. In the said proceedings, the petitioner raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the application and the statement. The Tribunal overruled that objection. On appeals, the District Judge affirmed the decision of the Tribunal. Aggrieved by the orders, the petitioner has preferred these two petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution.
4. Mr. Subbanna, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that after the village office was abolished and the land annexed to the office was resumed, the relationship of landlord and tenant as between the petitioner on the one hand and the respondents on the other, was extinguished and the respondents till the land was re-granted to them, cannot recover rents or resume the land from the petitioner.
5. The contention requires a close examination of the provisions of Sections 4 and 8 of the Act. By Section 4 (1) all village offices are abolished. By Sub-section (2) all incidents and emoluments attached to the village offices are extinguished and by Sub-section (3) the land granted or continued in respect of the village offices is resumed. Section 8 provides that if the said land has been lawfully leased and such lease is subsisting on the date on which the land is resumed, the said lease would be governed by the provisions of the tenancy law which is for the time being in force in that area. That is the first part of the section. The second part provides for the rights and liabilities of the person to whom such land is granted under Section 5, 6 or 7 end his tenant or tenants. The land in question was resumed on 1-2-1963 and, it is not yet re-granted to any one. On that day, indisputably, the lease as between the petitioner and respondents was subsisting. That being the position, the case of the parties falls under the first part of Section 8. The subsisting lease is therefore, governed by the provisions of the Mysore Land Reforms Act, which is the Act for the time being in force. The contention of Mr. Subbanna that Section 8 saves only the right of the tenant and not that of the landlord is clearly misconceived. The wording of the section does not lend support to the contention. The section states that the provisions of the Tenancy Law in force, shall apply to the lease of the land, till the land is re-granted. It does not state that the tenancy law is applicable only to the occupant of the land. The relationship of landlord and tenant created by the lease and the rights and liabilities of the parties thereto, should continue to remain subject to the provisions of the tenancy law till the land is re-granted and this is the position in spite of the land being resumed by the Government. After the re-grant to the holder of the village office, the tenant becomes a tenant of the grantee as provided by the second part of Section 8. In that view, the application filed under Section 42 and the statement filed under Section 14 of the Mysore Land Reforms Act are all maintainable. The view taken by the authorities below, therefore, does not call for interference.
6. In the result, these petitions fail and are dismissed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.