( 1 ) THE petitioner landlady has filed these two petitions against the two tenants as her application under sec. 32t on the basis of the certificate under sec. 88c has been dismissed by the order of the Revenue Tribunal dated February 22 1965 As both these petitions raise common questions they are disposed by this common order:-42 As regards the common question in the two petitions as to the findings that the petitioner landlady did not bona fide require the lands in question for personal cultivation the Revenue Tribunal has mixed up the requirements of sec. 31 with sec32t. Under sec. 31 (1) (a) the landlord is given a right to terminate the tenancy of lands if he bona fide required the same for personal cultivation. However further restriction was put on this right of termination for cultivating the land personally under sec. 31 and by reason of sec. 31a (c) which required that he must fulfill the following condition:- * * * * * * * * under sec. 88c (4) of the Act and whose tenant is therefore treated as an excluded tenant. Sec. 32t (I) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in secs. 31 and 31b both inclusive but subject to the provisions of this section a certified landlord may after giving notice and making an application for possession as provided in sub-sec. (3) terminate tenancy of any land leased to an excluded tenant if he bona fide required the land for cultivating it personally. In the entire sec. 32t even if the restriction in sub-clause (5) are considered there is no restriction similar to sec. 31a (c) and this right under sec. 32t (i) is notwithstanding anything contained in secs. 31 and 31b. It is obvious that the requirement of the land for bona fide and personal cultivation of the certified landlord has not to be examined by an application of the test laid down under sec. 31a (c ). Therefore that test of the income by cultivation of the land of which the landlord is entitled to take possession being the principal source of income for maintenance has no bearing in the context of sec. 32t (1 ). The Legislature duly made this distinction because the test of income by way of different test was already applied in case of a certified landlord when the certificate was granted under sec. 88c (4 ). Sec. 88c (1) in terms requires that this exemption certificate would be granted if the landlords annual income including the rent of such land did not exceed Rs. 1500/and his holding did not exceed the economic holding on the relevant date. It is to grant relief to these small holders whose annual income did not exceed Rs. 1500/that this exemption under sec. 88c was granted from the provisions of deemed purchase and a request was conferred under sec. 32t (1) for enabling such a small landholder to terminate the tenancy of the land leased to an excluded tenant if he bona fide requires such land for personal cultivation - The Revenue Tribunal has in terms held in both the cases that the landlady cannot succeed unless she was able to establish that her needs for maintenance could not be fulfilled without the lands in question being acquired by her. It is therefore obvious that the Revenue Tribunal had committed a patent error of law in applying a wrong test in judging the bona fide requirement of the landlady for personal cultivation. The Prant officer had come to a correct conclusion that the landlady required both the lands bona fide for her personal cultivation. There was no dispute that out of the three fields one field was in the personal cultivation of this landlady of 3 A 6 gunthas as through her daughters son and only two other rented fields. In fact the tenant contended that even these rented fields were under her personal cultivation while the authorities * * * * * * * * * tenancy. In that view of the matter the finding of the Prant Officer that the landlady established her bona fide requirement for personal cultivation in both the cases must be restored. On that finding Sp. C. A. No. 1166/65