Judgment

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. :- This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 14th August, 1987. The appellant took on rent the premises in dispute from the respondent at a monthly rent of Rs. 120/- and executed a rent note in his favour on 19th April, 1975. Clause 4 of the said rent note provided, inter alia, as follows :

"That the tenant will run the business of English Liquor Vend in the shop - will do sale of Liquor."

2. The landlord, respondent herein filed a petition under S. 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 (hereinafter called the Act) against the appellant on the ground of arrears of rent from 1-4-1979 to 31-8-1979 and change of user from Liquor Vend business to that of general merchandise at the shop in dispute by the appellant.

3. The appellant tendered the entire arrears of rent at the first date of hearing and thereafter he contested by filing written statement. The appellant submitted that after March, 1979, the licence of liquor-vend in his favour was not renewed and he had to discontinue that business of liquor-vend at the shop in dispute and had to start the business of general merchandise. According to the appellant the purpose of the user still remains commercial and that in the rent note there was no clause prohibiting the appellant to change to any other business in the shop in dispute.

4. The Rent Controller held that the appellant had changed the user of the shop in dispute and he was liable for eviction under the Act. There was an appeal to the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority dismissed the said appeal. The appellant went in civil revision to the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court dismissed the civil revision and upheld the eviction. Hence this appeal.

5. The question is whether a ground for eviction was made out under Cl. (b) of S. 13(2)(ii) of the Act. The said Act was passed to control the increase of rent of certain buildings and rented land situated within the limits of urban areas, and the eviction of the tenants therefrom. Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act reads as follows :

"13(2) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller, for direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application is satisfied :

(i) xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx

(ii) that the tenant has after commencement of 1949 Act, without the written consent of the landlord

(a) xx xx xx xx

(b) used the building or rented land for a purpose other than that for which it was leased."

6. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has relied on a Full Bench decision of the said High Court in Sikander Lal v. Amrit Lal, 1984 Punj LR 1. That was a case under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act of 1949. The Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the facts and circumstances of that case held that it was a common ground that the premises was originally leased for the business of handlooms. Thereafter it was used for small carding machine not. occupying a space of more than 4 feet X 4 feet which converted cloth into thread. It was held that there was no change of user. The Full Bench, however, observed that it emerged from the long line of authorities that where the subsequent use of the premises is merely ancillary to the specific original purpose then it would imply no change of user within the meaning of the statutes. If by custom or convention or on the finding of the Court it could be held that the added use of the premises was ancillary to the main original purpose then in the eye of law it would be deemed to have been within the terms of the original lease. It was further held that both on principle and on binding precedent it emerged that the specified original purpose could not be, according to the Full Bench extended by adding to it any and every purpose thereto, and the same must be confined within the limitat