JUDGMENT

K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.:— The shop premises belonging to the respondent landlady was taken on rent by the petitioner for business purposes. The premises are within the scope of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (The Bombay Rent Act). The petitioner has been carrying on business in sweetmeats and farsan. The landlady brought action to recover possession of the premises under S. 13(1)(c) on the ground that the tenant has been convicted of using the premises. It is not in dispute that the tenant was convicted on three occasions, first in 1968 for sellingadulterated Desi-butter and second, in 1972 for selling sugar-garlands coloured with mentanil yellow a coaltar dye which is a prohibited colouring agent. In the second judgment of conviction, it has been stated that the tenant had admitted two previous convictions and in one of the cases he was sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. All the convictions and sentences were under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

2. The Bombay High Court has accepted the claim of the landlady and ordered eviction under S. 13(1)(c).

3. The tenant seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Bombay High Court. S. 13(1)(c) of the Bombay Rent Act reads:

" 13(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, but subject to the provisions of Ss. 15 and 15A, a landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court is satisfied.

(c) That the tenant or any person residing with the tenant has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to the adjoining or neighbouring occupiers, or has been convicted of using the premises or allowing the premises to be used for immoral or illegal purposes; or that the tenant has in respect of the premises been convicted of an offence of contravention of any provision of Cl. (a) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 394 or of S. 394-A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act."

Underlining is ours

Section 13(1)(c) inter alia, provides that the landlord shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court is satisfied that the tenant or any person residing with the tenant has been guilty of conduct or has been convicted of using the premises or allowing the premises to be used for immoral or illegal purposes etc.

4. Counsel for the tenant submits that the expression "convicted of using the premises" must be limited to offences which involve the user of the premises and user of the premises must by itself be an offence under law. By way o f illustration, reference was made to the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 and the Bombay Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 whereunder the use of the premises for illegal purposes has been defined as an offence and punishable. It is only such conviction, counsel contends that it would expose the tenant to the risk of ejectment under S. 13(1)(c). It is also argued that S. 13(1)(c) does not cover non-residential premises and it covers only the residential premises.

5. We will consider the second question first. The contention is based on the term used in Cl. (c), namely "that the tenant or any person residing with the tenant has been....... and it is said that the expression "residing with the tenant" indicates that Cl. (c) is applicable only to residential premises. The essence of the submission is that business premises are not used for residence. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in a separate judgment connected with this case has not accepted that interpretation. It has expressed the view that Cl. (c) covers equally residential and non-residential premises and the expression "residing with the tenant" used in CI.(c) only indicates that the offence contemplated in CI.(c) could be committed by the tenant or any person residing with tenant. We concur with this view. S. 13(1)(c) applies to any premises. S. 5(8) defines premises to mean amongst others, any building or part of a building let or given on licence separately other t