Key Points: - The judgment states that change of user requires that the new business have linkage with the original or be allied/ancillary; mere change of business does not automatically amount to change of user (!) (!) . - If the tenant undertakes to vacate by a fixed date in High Court, this undertaking does not bar the right to approach Supreme Court under Article 136; undertaking does not affect the constitutional remedy (overruling earlier precedents) (!) (!) . - Where the new business is only temporary and the tenant reverts to the original business during the eviction proceedings, eviction may not be justified; ends of justice may warrant allowing tenancy with adjusted rent in certain circumstances (!) . - The decision discusses previous cases (Rattan Lal v. Asha Rani, Mohan Lal v. Jai Bhagwan, Dashrath Baburao Sangale, etc.) to illustrate how changes of user have been treated historically (!) (!) . - The definition of "use for a purpose other than that for which it was leased" focuses on the actual use and whether it constitutes an incompatible purpose, not merely a new business in a commercial setting (!) (!) .

How to determine whether a change of user under Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 amounts to eviction when the tenant starts a new allied or ancillary business?

What is the effect of a tenant’s undertaking given in High Court on the maintainability of a subsequent Supreme Court Article 136 appeal?

What are the permissible boundaries for allowing a temporary change of user in a commercial lease under Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act, and when may a tenant revert to the original business without eviction?