A subsequent use of the premises that is a part of or ancillary to the specific original purpose does not amount to a change of user within the meaning of Sec.13 (2) (ii) (b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949.

S.S.SANDHAWALA, J.

1. In this reference to the Full Bench, the significant question that now survives for adjudication may be formulated in the terms following:-

"Where the premises have been originally leased for a specific purpose, then would any subsequent use thereof, which is a part of or ancillary to, the said specified purpose amount to a chang of user within the meaning of Sec.13 (2) (ii) (b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 ?"

2. The facts relevant to the aforesaid issue may be noticed with relative brevity. Amrit Lal landlord-respondent had preferred the application for ejectment of the tenant from the premises on the ground that he had taken the same on lease for the specific purpose of carrying on the trade of Khaddis (hand-looms) for a period of 11 months after which he was in occupation as a statutory tenant. It was alleged inter alia that the tenant had now changed the user of the premises without the consent of the landlord in writing or otherwise, and further that he had made certain constructions without the consent in writing or otherwise of the landlord and thereby impaired the value and utility thereof materially.

3. In contesting the aforesaid petition, the tenant controverted the allegations and took up the plea that as originally he had installed anti continued to carry on the business of handlooms and had merely added a small carding machine by which the thread is extracted from the old cloth which is a part of the business of handloom industry. It was further denied that any construction had been made so as to impair the value and utility of the premises.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the respondent is liable to ejectment from the premises in dispute on the grounds mentioned in para No. 2 of the application other than non-payment of arrears of rent ?

2. Whether the premises in dispute ore rented land within the meaning of Act III of 1949 ?

3. Whether the notice served on the respondent under Sec.106 of the Transfer of Property Act is invalid ?

4. Relief.

5. On consideration of the evidence, the Rent Controller, decided the material issues Nos. 1 and 2 against the landlord with the result that the eviction application was dismissed.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the Rent Controller, the landlord preferred an appeal and the Appellate Authority reversed the finding of the Rent Controller and held that the tenant had changed the user of premises from the specific purpose for which it was originally leased without the consent of the landlord. Consequently, the ejectment application was allowed and the order of eviction of the tenant was passed.

7. Dissatisfied from the order of the Appellate Authority, the present petition was preferred by the tenant. This originally came up before a learned single Judge who on examining the matter in the light of various judicial decisions, opined that the case required to be considered by a larger Bench. When the matter came up before the Division Bench, the learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. M.L. Sarin, raised the following points before it:-

(i) That the ground of change of user under the Act would be available only if the user of the building or the rented land is changed i.e. a residential building is used as non-residential or scheduled building;

(i) That once a building has been rened out for a particular business or trade then all acts done which are ancillary or necessary to the carrying out of that business or trade would not amount to change of user; and

(iii) That where the dominant purpose for which the property was leased out is being carried out and it is only that a small portion of the demised premises has bean put to a different use, then the tenant would not be guilty of change of user.

As regards question (i) aforesaid, the learned counsel for the petitioner-tenant had fairly conceded that in view of the Full Bench judgment in Des Raj V/s. Sham Lal, AIR 1980 Punj and Har