JUDGMENT

VERMA, J.—The suit premises in Chandigarh was let out by the appellant to the respondent, Smt Satya Bhalla on November 1, 1974 on a monthly rent of Rs 550 solely for residential purpose. However, the respondents husband, a lawyer established his office in a part of the suit premises and started using the same for that purpose. The appellant-landlord filed a petition before the Rent Controller in February 1983 seeking eviction of the respondent-tenant on several grounds including the ground contained in Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 i.e. the use of the building for a purpose other than that for which it was leased. The Rent Controller made an order of eviction of the respondent-tenant on the ground of change of user contained in Section 13(2)(ii)(b). The tenants appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority which affirmed the order of eviction made by the Rent Controller. A further revision to the High Court has been allowed by the learned Single Judge and the order of eviction has been set aside. The High Court has held that the building let out as a residential building became a scheduled building by use of a part thereof as lawyers office by the tenants husband; and therefore, the ground of eviction was not available. The order of eviction made in the landlords favour was, therefore, set aside. Hence this appeal by the landlord by special leave.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the ground of change of user contained in Section 13(2)(ii)(b) is clearly made out from the facts and the High Court has erred in setting aside the order of eviction. In reply Shri V.G. Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent-tenant, advanced several arguments. He submitted that the landlord had waived the ground of change of user by acquiescence to use of a part of the premises as lawyers office. His next submission is that the ground in Section 13(2)(ii)(b) is not available unless the change of user is of substantial, if not the entire building and, therefore, mere use of a small part of the residential building as lawyers office does not constitute such change. Learned counsel also submitted that this is not a fit case for interference with the High Courts order under Article 136 of the Constitution.

3. Having heard both sides, we are satisfied that this appeal has to be allowed. The High Courts interference in revision with the order of eviction made by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the appellate authority, was wholly unjustified.

4. There is no merit in Shri Mahajans argument of waiver or acquiescence by the landlord. Before the Rent Controller the tenant had pleaded estoppel against the landlord, which after due consideration was rightly rejected by the Rent Controller. That finding of the Rent Controller was not assailed by the tenant either before the appellate authority or in the High Court. On merits also, this plea is untenable since no such conduct of the landlord is shown. The argument is, therefore, rejected. We also do not find any substance in the contention that interference under Article 136 is not warranted, in case it is found that the High Court set aside the order of eviction on a misconstruction of the law applicable in the present case. The only question, therefore, is whether on the proved facts, no longer in controversy, the ground in Section 13(2)(ii)(b) is made out.

5. The material provisions in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restrictions Act, 1949 with reference to which the contention of Shri Mahajan has to be considered, are the following:

"2. Definitions.- * * *

(a) building means any building or part of a building let for any purpose whether being actually used for that purpose or not, including any land, godowns, out-houses, or furniture let therewith, but does not include a room in a hotel, hostel or boarding house;

* * *

(d) non-residential building means a building being used solely for the purpose of business or trade:

Provided that residenc