IMPORTANT POINT
Where tenant-respondent was let out premises for business purpose but started using it for manufacturing purpose also without the written consent of landlord-appellant he is liable to be evicted in view of Section 20(2)(d) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972.

JUDGMENT

Bhan, J.-Leave granted.

2. On the submissions made before us the only point required to be determined in these appeals is: as to whether the tenant-respondent (hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") having started using the premises in dispute for a purpose other than the purpose for which it was let out to him without the written consent of the appellant-landlord (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant") is liable to be evicted in view of the provisions of Section 20(2)(d) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") ?

3. The suit premises consisting of three rooms were admittedly let out for business purpose of selling of copies and books in the year 1970 by the father of the appellant to the respondent-tenant. In the year 1976, the respondent started manufacturing copies, registers sweet-meat boxes made of card board. In the year 1982 he installed a printing machine and started printing work without obtaining the written consent of the appellant.

4. It may be stated that father of the appellant died in the year 1978 leaving behind his widow Smt. Ramrati Devi and three sons, namely, Ramayan Prasad, Jagdish Prasad and Bharat Lal Baranwal (appellant). In the family settlement, the northern portion of house including the suit premises was allotted to the appellant, as such he became the owner as well as the landlord of the suit premises.

5. After issuing notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act and passage of statutory notice period, appellant instituted the suit for eviction under Section 20(2) of the Act against the respondent.

6. In response to the notice issued, the respondent entered appearance and filed the written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following three issues were framed.

1. Whether the defendant started manufacturing work in the premises in suit and thereby violated the terms of the tenancy?

2. Whether the notice is invalid and the suit is not maintainable?

3. To what relief, the plaintiff is enitled?

7. Parties led their evidence. The Trial Court after appraisal of the evidence recorded the following findings:

"1. That in the inception the tenant was carrying out business in sale of copies and books in the premises in suit.

2. The tenant started manufacturing copies, registers and sweetmeat boxes made of card board in the year 1976.

3. The original landlord was alive when the tenant started manufacturing work and no objection was raised from his side.

4. The printing work was started in the year 1982-83."

8. It was held that the tenant did not put the suit premises to any use inconsistent with the purposes for which it was let out. No damage was caused to the building by the use of the machines. As no objection was raised by the original landlord in the year 1976 when the tenant started manufacturing copies and registers etc. there was a tacit consent of the landlord to the change of use of the suit premises. On these pleadings the Trial Court dismissed the suit.

9. The appellant being aggrieved, filed a revision petition as provided under the Act. The Revisional Court after referring to Section 20(2)(d) of the Act as it stood prior to its amendment as well as after its amendment by U.P. Act No.28 of 1976, held that neither before the amendment of clause (d) of Section 20(2) nor thereafter the respondent could use the premises for any purposes other than it was let out without the written consent of the landlord. Since the tenant had changed the user of the premises for a purpose other than the one for which it was let out to him, he was liable to be evicted. Accordingly, the revision petition was accepted and a decree for ejectment was passed against the respondent.

10. Aggrieved against the order of Revisional Court, the respondent filed a petition under Articl