(1) THE short question that arises for our consideration in this case is where the property was demised for running a shop, if the tenant were to instal an Atta Chakki and Oil Kohlu, whether he is liable to be evicted under Section 13(2(d) of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973. We are clearly of the opinion that having regard to the ruling of this court that installation of such machinery would amount to manufacture, it is not very difficult to hold that there is change of user. Further it is argued by Mr Nesargi, learned counsel for the appellant that there is no change in the user since it is still business. We are unable to agree. It is not the business as such but it is running of a flour mill which altered the user.

(2) THE last submission made by the learned counsel is that he has come to purchase l/4th share of the demised premises though it is a subsequent event, this court can take note of the same; therefore it is not possible for the landlord to recover possession as on today. We do not think we should go into this. Suffice it to say that by reasons of the purchase of l/4th share of the portion the liability to be evicted is not in any