JUDGMENT

RANGANATH MISRA, J.:— This is a tenants appeal by special leave challenging his eviction from a business premises located at Jallandhar.

2. Under a rent note (Exh.A-1), the appellant had taken the premises on rent from the respondent-landlord. The use to which the premises was intended to be put was running of a cycle and rickshaw repairing shop. As far as relevant, on the allegation that the tenant had put the premises to different use, an application for his eviction was made under S. 13(2)(ii)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

3. The Controller found that the appellant had continued the business of repairing of cycles and rickshaws but side by side had for a period of about seven months been selling televisions in the premises but he stopped the same as it was not viable. According to the Controller, this did not constitute user for a purpose other than that for which the premises was leased and he accordingly rejected the petition. The appellate authority at the landlords instance held that the statutory condition was satisfied and granted eviction. The High Court when moved by the tenant declined to interfere.

4. The short question that arises for consideration is whether there has been a violation of the terms of tenancy by using the premises for a purpose other than that for which the premises had been leased. The tenant did not dispute that he had taken the premises for running a repair shop of cycles and rickshaws. In his statement he said that he had commenced the business of selling the televisions side by side in view of the slump in the cycle and rickshaw repairing business. He also accepted the position that he had not obtained the consent of the landlord when he started the TV business. The landlord has accepted the position that in the rent note it was not written that the respondent would not do any business in the shop in dispute except the cycle or rickshaw repairs. On these facts it has now to be decided as to whether the premises has been used for a purpose other than that for which it had been leased.

5. Reliance was placed on the Full Bench decision of the Punjab High Court in Des Raj v. Sham Lal, AIR 1980 Punj & Har 229 where the question for consideration was as to whether when the lease was for the purpose of a shop without anything more specific, user thereof as a godown amounted to change of user. The High Court in course of the discussion in the judgment rightly drew the distinction between residential and non-residential premises and also classified non-residential buildings into known categories like shop, godown, restaurant, cinema, hotel etc. In course of the discussion the Full Bench referred to the decision of this Court in Moti Ram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1978 SC 1594 and came to the conclusion that when the letting out purpose was location of a shop and it was exclusively used as a godown, it amounted to a change of user. Not much of support is directly available for the resolution of the present dispute from that judgment. Reliance was also placed on a decision of this Court in the case of Mohan Lal v. Jai Bhagwan (1988) 2 SCC 474, where the very provision of the East Punjab Act was considered in a case of eviction. The decision of this Court in the case of Maharaj Kishan Kesan v. Milkha Singh (C.A. No. 1086/64 decided on November 10, 1965) : (reported in 1966 Cur LJ 273) was referred to therein. That again was a decision under the very Act and the dispute related to the allegation of change of user when petrol was sold as an allied business of the avowed purpose of locating the workshop. The Court found that location of a petrol pump could not be regarded as not being a part of motor workshop business. Rightly, our learned brother Mukharji, J. indicated that the ratio in Maharaj Kishan Kesars case did not provide any guideline of general nature. What was said in para 9 of his judgment is perhaps useful. Our learned Brother quoted the observations of Lord