ORDER : 1. Heard. 2. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for following reliefs: (i) To declare Section 34 (i) (d) & (dd) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 ultra vires to principles of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1951. (ii) To struck down Section 34 (i) (d) & (dd) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. 3. Section 34 (i) (d) & (dd) of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, (for short ‘Act’), reads as under: “34. Grounds of ejectment of tenants: (1) A tenant other than occupancy tenant shall not be liable to ejectment from his tenancy except on anyone or more of the following grounds, namely: (a) to (c) xx xx xx (d) that he holds his tenancy, from a person who created such tenancy within a period of six months before he became a member of the Armed Forces or while he was serving in the Armed Forces and wants to cultivate it himself on his ceasing to be a member of the Armed Forces; (dd) that he holds his tenancy on the land comprising the share of a member of the Armed Forces covered by clause (d) of sub-section (8) of section 104 and who wants to cultivate it himself on his ceasing to be a member of the Armed Forces; Provided that such person or member of Armed Forces referred to in clause (d) and (dd) above, as the case may be, shall be entitled to eject a tenant from such land upto a maximum of five acres, in the prescribed manner: Provided further that a tenant so ejected shall be restored to possession of the land if the landowner after ejecting him does not within one year cultivate it personally: Provided also that if a tenant holding land from persons mentioned in clauses (d) and (dd) of this subsection is also a member of the Armed Forces, the provision of first proviso shall not apply and the tenancy shall remain and the ejectment from tenancy shall only be on the grounds given in clauses (a) to (c) of this sub-section.” 4. By virtue of the aforesaid provisions of the Act, additional grounds for eviction of tenant have been enacted whereby a person having served Armed Forces, who either had created the tenancy within a period of six months before he became a member of the Armed Forces or had done so while he was serving the Armed Forces, has been entitled to evict tenant on his ceasing to be a member of the Armed Forces and wanting to cultivate it himself. Similar right has been provided to a member of the Armed Forces covered by clause (d) of sub-section (8) of Section 104 of the Act, who wants to cultivate it himself on ceasing to be a member of the Armed Forces. However, the extent of land from which such eviction can be ordered has been capped at five acres. 5. Petitioner has assailed the aforesaid provision as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground that it tends to create a special class for members of Armed Forces by entitling them to eject a tenant from tenanted land upto a maximum of five acres, whereas, none of the other category of persons as provided in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 34 of the Act have been provided which privilege. 6. Section 34 provides for grounds on which the tenant can be ejected. Clause (c) of sub section (1) of Section 34 provides one such ground wherein the ejectment can be ordered in case tenant sublets the holding or part thereof for profit without the consent of the landowner. A proviso, however, attached to such sub-section creates an exception in favour of certain categories of tenants including members of Armed Forces from ejectment on the aforesaid ground. 7. Thus, the comparison of the members of Armed Forces as landowners having been granted rights under subsections (d) and (dd) of Section (1) of Section 34 of the Act cannot be compared to the class of tenants described in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 34 and proviso appended thereto. The objection of the petitioner in this regard is clearly misplaced. 8. Further, challenge has been laid to Section 34 (1) (d) and (dd) of the Act on the ground that the same is in conflict with Section 104 (1) (i) of the Act. The objection of the petitioner in this regard is clearly misplaced. 8. Further, challenge has been laid to Section 34 (1) (d) and (dd) of the Act on the ground that the same is in conflict with Section 104 (1) (i) of the Act. As per petitioner, Section 104 (1) and (i) provides that a landowner is entitled to evict the tenant to an extent of one and a half acres of irrigated and three acres of un-irrigated land and thus creates a differentia between members of Armed Forces and other categories of landowners under Section 104 (1) (i) of the Act. 9. Section 104 (1) (i) of the Act, reads as under: “104. 9. Section 104 (1) (i) of the Act, reads as under: “104. Right of tenant other than occupancy tenant to acquire interests of landowner: (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, contract, custom or usage for the time being in force, on and from the commencement of this Act, if the whole of the land of the landowner is under non-occupancy tenants, and if such a landowner has not exercised the right of resumption of tenancy land at any time since January 26, 1955, under any law as in force:- (i) such a landowner shall be entitled to resume before the date to be notified by the State Government in the official Gazette and in the manner prescribed, either one and a half acres of irrigated land or three acres of un-irrigated land under tenancy from one or more than one tenants for his personal cultivation and the right, title and interest (including contingent interest, if any) of the tenant or tenants, as the case may be, therefrom shall stand extinguished free from all encumbrances created by the tenant or tenants to that extent: Provided that if the tenant has taken loan from the State Government, a co-operative society or a bank for the improvement of tenancy land which the landowner has resumed under clause (i) or clause (ii) and has used such loan for the improvement of such land, then the landowner shall be liable to repay the outstanding amount of such loan and to the extent actually used for the said purpose and interest thereon to the State Government or to the Cooperative Society or a bank, as the case may be, proportionate to the improved land resumed by him: Provided further that the landowner shall not be entitled to resume from a tenant more than one half of the tenancy land.” 10. The plank of challenge on behalf of petitioner is described as inequality being caused by aforesaid provision. 11. We are of the considered view that such contention of petitioner is also misconceived. Section 104 (1) (i) operates in completely different domain than the field of operation prescribed by Section 34 of the Act. The plank of challenge on behalf of petitioner is described as inequality being caused by aforesaid provision. 11. We are of the considered view that such contention of petitioner is also misconceived. Section 104 (1) (i) operates in completely different domain than the field of operation prescribed by Section 34 of the Act. Whereas, Section 34 prescribes grounds of eviction of tenants, section 104 of the Act prescribes the vestment of rights in nonoccupancy tenants subject to right of resumption by landowner to resume one and half acre of irrigated or three acre un-irrigated land in case the entire holding of landowner was under tenancy. Right of resumption and right of ejectment cannot be compared. 12. Even otherwise, the special rights conferred upon members of Armed Forces and certain other categories viz., minors, unmarried woman, divorced or separated woman etc. does not militate against the purpose of the Act. Though the Act has been enacted for benefits of tenants and to further the cause of agrarian reforms, the saving of certain rights in favour of aforesaid categories of persons is justified keeping in view the intent and purpose of the Act. 13. The Act finds place at serial No. 138 of 9th Schedule of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the vires of Section 34 (1) (d) & (dd) of the Act being in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India in view of the provision of Article 31B of the Constitution of India. The provision of Section 34 (1) (d) & (dd) of the Act in no manner touches the basis structure of Constitution. 14. The petition even otherwise does not appear to be bonafide. Petitioner is tenant and respondent No. 3 is the landowner and also a person having served Armed Forces. Petitioner having failed to stall his ejectment from tenanted land by fighting the litigation upto the Hon’ble Apex Court has now chosen to approach this Court by way of instant petition. Thus, the petition is nothing, but an abuse of process of Court. 15. In light of above discussion, we don’t find any merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any.