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 c