JUDGMENT N.K. Sud, J. (Oral) - The private respondent Nos. 5 to 8 are Non Resident Indians (for short NRIs) and have been living in England for the last more than 30 years. They own 172 bighas and 17 biswas of agricultural land in village Ranbirpura, Tehsil and District, Patiala, in which the petitioners were the tenants. The private respondents filed a suit for ejectment of the petitioners from the land in dispute under Sections 7, 7-A and 8 of the Pepsu Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 (for short the Act) and for recovery of Rs. 1,30,000/- as arrears of rent for the year 1997-98. The Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Patiala, vide his order dated 28.4.1999 ordered the ejectment of the petitioners on the ground that the private respondents were NRIs and, therefore, they were entitled to get the petitioners evicted from their land without proving any of the grounds mentioned in Sections 7 and 7-A of the Act. Regarding the arrears of rent, it was found that only a sum of Rs. 16,620/- against Rs. 1,30,000/- claimed by the private respondents was due. A copy of the order of the Assistant Collector has been produced on record as Annexure P-1. 2. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Collector, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector, Patiala, which was dismissed by him vide order dated 21.9.1999, a copy of which has been produced on record as Annexure P-4. 3. The petitioners filed a revision petition against the order of the Collector before the Commissioner, Patiala Division, Patiala, which was also dismissed vide order dated 7.2.2000, a copy of which has been attached as Annexure P-6 with the writ petition. 4. Not satisfied, the petitioners filed a further petition before the Financial Commissioner (Appeals-II), Punjab, Chandigarh, which was also dismissed on 15.12.2000. A copy of the order of the Financial Commissioner has been attached as Annexure P-8 with the writ petition. It is against these orders that the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Mr. J.R. Mittal, Senior Advocate, appeared on behalf of the petitioners. He submitted that termination of tenancy is governed by the provisions of Sections 7 and 7-A of the Act and could be terminated only on the grounds contained therein. It is against these orders that the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Mr. J.R. Mittal, Senior Advocate, appeared on behalf of the petitioners. He submitted that termination of tenancy is governed by the provisions of Sections 7 and 7-A of the Act and could be terminated only on the grounds contained therein. However, by referring to the language of Sub-sections (1) of Section 7, he submitted that the NRIs were altogether precluded from seeking the termination of the tenancy even on those grounds. It was further argued that the tenancy of the petitioners could not be terminated even under Section 7-A of the Act as they were small land owners. For this purpose Mr. Mittal relied on the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 7-A of the Act. It was also contended that the private respondents had not filed an application for termination of tenancy and, therefore, the impugned orders terminated the tenancy were bad on that score also. 6. We are unable to accept the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners which are based on a total misreading of the provisions of Sections 7 and 7-A of the Act. For the sake of convenience, the said provisions are reproduced below :- "7. Termination of tenancy :- (1) No tenancy other than a tenancy of the landowner who is member of Armed Forces of the union or a Non-resident Indian shall be terminated except in accordance with the provisions of this Act or except on any of the following grounds, namely :- (a) .. Termination of tenancy :- (1) No tenancy other than a tenancy of the landowner who is member of Armed Forces of the union or a Non-resident Indian shall be terminated except in accordance with the provisions of this Act or except on any of the following grounds, namely :- (a) .. (-) (b) That the tenant has failed to pay, rent within a period of six months after it falls due :- Provided that no tenant shall be ejected under this clause unless he has been afforded an opportunity to pay the arrears of rent within a further period of six months from the date of the decree or order directing his ejectment and he has failed to pay such arrears during that period; (c) that the tenant not being a widow, a minor, an unmarried woman, a member of the Armed Forces of the Union or a person incapable of cultivating land by reason of physical or mental infirmity has after commencement of the Presidents Act sublet without the consent in writing of the land owner, the land comprising his tenancy or any part thereof; (d) that the tenant has, without sufficient cause, failed to cultivate personally such land, in the manner and to the extent customary in the locality in which such land is situated; (e) that the tenant has used such land or any part thereof in a manner which is likely to render the land unfit for the purpose for which it was leased to him; (f) that the tenant, on demand, in writing by the landowner has refused to execute a kabuliyat agreeing to pay rent in respect of his tenancy in accordance with the provisions of Sections 9 and 10." "7-A Additional grounds for termination of tenancy in certain case :- (1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-sections (2) and (3), a tenancy subsisting at the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Second Amendment) Act, 1956, may be terminated on the following grounds in addition to the grounds specified in Section 7, namely :- (a) that the land comprising the tenancy has been reserved by the landowner for his personal cultivation in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II; (b) that the landowner owns thirty standard acres or less of land and the land falls within his permissible limit; Provided that no tenant other than a tenant of a landowner who is member of the Armed Forces of the Union or a Non-Resident Indian shall be ejected under this Sub-section :- (i) from any area of land if the area under the personal cultivation of the tenant does not exceed five standard acres, or (ii) from an area of five standard acres, if the area under the personal cultivation of the tenant, exceeds five standard acres, Until he is allotted by the State Government alternative land of equivalent value in standard acres. (2) No tenant, who immediately proceeding the commencement of the Presidents Act had held any land continuously for a period of twelve years or more under the same landowner or his Predecessor-in-title, shall be ejected on the grounds specified in Sub-section (1) - (a) from any area of land, if the area under the personal cultivation of the tenant exceeds fifteen standard acres, or (b) from an area of fifteen standard acres, if the area under the personal cultivation of the tenant exceeds fifteen standard acres; Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall apply to the tenant of a landowner who, both at the commencement of the tenancy and the commencement of the Presidents Act, was a widow, a minor, an unmarried woman, a member of the Armed Forces of the Union or a person incapable of cultivating land by reason of physical or mental infirmity. Explanation :- In computing the period of twelve years, the period during which any land has been held under the same land owner or his predecessor-in-title by the father, brother or son of the tenant shall be included. (3) For the purpose of computing under Sub-sections (1) and (2) area of land under the personal cultivation of a tenant, any area of land owned by the tenant and under his personal cultivation shall be included." It is, therefore, apparent that a tenancy can be terminated only in accordance with the provisions of the Act or on any of the grounds mentioned in the above mentioned two provisions. The operative parts of Sub-section (1) of Section 7 and of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 7-A, when originally enacted, read as under :- "7 Termination of tenancy :- (1) No tenancy shall be terminated except in accordance with the provisions of this Act or except of any of the following grounds :- xx xx xx xx xx xx" "7-A. Additional grounds for termination of tenancy in certain cases :- (1) xx xx xx xx xx (a) xx xx xx xx (c) xx xx xx xx Provided that no tenant shall be ejected under this Sub-section :- xx xx xx xx xx xx Thus, according to the original provisions of the Act, no tenancy could be terminated under any circumstances except on the grounds mentioned in Sections 7 and 7-A of the Act. However, subsequently, by way of successive amendments in the Act, a concession was granted firstly to the members of the Armed Forces of the Union and then to the Non Resident Indians. They can get the tenancy terminated at any time without there being any ground at all. However, the concession in the case of NRI was restricted only as a one time concession Thus, a NRI could get the tenancy over his land terminated without his proving any of the grounds mentioned in Section 7 or 7-A of the Act only once in his life time. This is evident from the provisions of Section 7-B of the Act, which are reproduced below :- "7-B-One Time concession :- The concession given under Section 7 and 7-A to the landowner who is a Non-Resident Indian shall be one time and shall be available only in respect of the land acquired or held by him before the commencement of the Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1997." 7. If the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners were to be accepted it would mean that a member of the Armed Forces of the Union or a NRI cannot ever get the tenancy of a tenant terminated. Such an interpretation is not only contrary to the express provisions of Sections 7 and 7-A but would also render the provisions of Section 7-B referring to the concession granted to a NRI meaningless. The Financial Commissioner has also rightly noticed that the intention of the Legislature was also clear from the amendment made in Section 32-J of the Act wherein a tenant of a NRI was made eligible for allotment of alternative surplus land under clause (a) of Sub-section (3) of that Section. According to us this is the only interpretation possible. A bare reading of operative part of Section 7(1) of the Act shows that there is no ambiguity in its language whatsoever warranting any other interpretation. Same is the position about the applicability of Sub-section (1) of Section 7-A. The proviso, as already noticed, after the amendment excludes NRIs from its purview. Therefore, the petitioners cannot drive any benefit from the fact that they were small landowners. 8. Same is the position about the applicability of Sub-section (1) of Section 7-A. The proviso, as already noticed, after the amendment excludes NRIs from its purview. Therefore, the petitioners cannot drive any benefit from the fact that they were small landowners. 8. We also find no merit in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that in the absence of an application for termination of tenancy by the private respondents the impugned orders could not have been passed. This argument is being noticed only to be rejected. The suit for ejectment filed by the private respondents itself tantamounts to filing of an application for termination of tenancy. 9. We are, therefore, satisfied that there is no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine. Petition dismissed.