V. MOHTA ANOOP, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner-tenant has invoked Article 227 of the constitution of India and sought to challenge concurrent findings of fact given by the Courts below, whereby, respondent-landlord's suit for possession on the ground of "change of user and non occupation continuously for more than 'six months" has been decreed.

( 2 ) THE suit property is situated on the ground floor of house No. 358, Shop no. 4, Ganesh Peth, Pune, consisting of two rooms having monthly rent of Rs. 55/- and Rs. 16/- towards education cess. Petitioner- tenant had occupied shop No. 1, as alleged, for composite use since 1962 to 1977. On 22nd January, 1997, the petitioner-tenant agreed and exchanged the tenancy of Shop No. 4, premises in question, with Shop No. 1. The petitioner-tenant, since then, has agreed to occupy the Shop No. 4 for residence purpose only and accordingly been using the same since then, till 10th September, 1981. From 11th september, 1981, petitioner-tenant, without permission, has been using the premises in question for making hardboard boxes.

( 3 ) THE said business has been registered as "hemant Box Manufacturing company" in the name of his son and also registered under the Shops and establishments Act. Petitioner-tenant has alleged that he is using the said premises for both the purposes as the earlier premises were also used for the composite purpose. The petitioner, at the time of exchange of the premises, agreed in writing, to use the premises in question for residence purpose only and accordingly, endorsement was made on Exhibit-18. The respondent- landlord, as alleged never objected for the use of the said premises for composite purpose. The respondent-landlord, however, resisted the said contentions.

( 4 ) ON 5th May, 1983, as petitioner-tenant requested the landlord in writing to grant permission to install 1 hp machine in the premises, the said permission was granted in writing by the respondent-landlord. On 3rd June, 1983, the respondent-landlord, as per legal advise, however, withdrew the said permission for allowing the premises for business and/or for installation of machine.

( 5 ) ON 23rd December, 1983 the respondent-landlord filed a Suit for possession under Section 13 (l) (a) and (k) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1947 (for short "bombay Rent Act" ). The petitioner-tenant resisted the said suit by a Written Statement (Exh. 29) and an Additional Written Statement. The parties led evidence. The petitioner- tenant examined 4 witnesses-DW1 Shantilal, petitioner himself, DW2 Vishnu, dw3 Subhash-Officer of the Pune Municipal Corporation (for short "pmc") and DW4 Mahadev, Inspector under the Bombay Shops and Establishments act. Respondent-landlord examined himself only (PW1 ). By judgment and decree dated 10th February, 1986, the Additional Small Causes Court (Trial court) passed a decree as prayed in favour of the respondent-landlord. The additional District Judge (Appellate Court) in Civil Appeal preferred by the petitioner by impugned judgment and decree dated 22nd June, 1989, confirmed the decree for possession and dismissed the petitioner tenant's appeal. The Petitioner-tenant has, therefore, preferred the present Writ Petition. The petitioner-tenant is enjoying the possession of the premises in view of the admission order in the Writ Petition and in interim order passed by this Court dated 6th July, 1990.

( 6 ) HEARD the learned Counsel Mr. C. M. Shastri for the petitioner-tenant who backed up the submissions by a catena of judgments. Mrs. Gauri Godse appearing for the respondent-landlord resisted the submissions and supported the concurrent findings given by the courts below and he has also relied on the judgments of the Apex Court, as well as, of our High Court.

( 7 ) BOTH the Courts, based on the material, as well as, the evidence on the record, are in line on the following issues (a) The petitioner-tenant was a teacher serving in the School when he was