1. The first point argued in this second appeal is that supposing the defendant is a ryot of old waste as denned in Section 3 of the Madras Estates Land Act, the landholder has no right to eject him as none of the grounds mentioned in Section 157 of the Act, which relates to the ejectment of such a ryot has been alleged to exist by the plaintiff. Section 157 enacts that such a ryot cannot be ejected except on the grounds mentioned in Section 153 (and certain other grounds which are immaterial for the present case) which refers to the ejectment of non-occupancy ryots generally. Five grounds for ejectment were mentioned in Section 153 as it originally stood. A proviso was added to the section by Section 8 of Madras Act 4 of 1909 in these terms "nothing in this section shall affect the liability of a non-occupancy ryot to be ejected on the ground of expiry of the term of a lease granted before the passing of this Act". The effect of the proviso was of course to entitle a landholder to eject a non-occupancy ryot on the ground of the expiry of a lease granted before the passing of the Act. The ground of the ejectment in such a case is the expiry of the lease. Section 153 does no