A tenant cannot change the user of the rented premises without the written consent of the landlord. Waiver and acquiescence cannot operate as an estoppel against the landlord under the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973.

, J.

1. The challenge in revision here is to the order of ejectment passed against the tenant on the ground of change of user.

2. On March 20, 1987, Jyoti Prasad and Kidar Natb granted a lease of vacant land in Hissar to the tenant -Charanji Lal. The lease being for 32, years at a rent of Rs.72/- per annum. The parties to this lease namely; Jyoti Prasad, Kidar Nath and Charanji Lal have ail since died leaving behind this legacy of litigation for their legal representatives to continue and pursue.

3. According to the lease deed exhibit R/10, the land had been given for barai lagana karkhona that is, for setting up a factory, but it also went on to say "hasab zarurat was aroom wa mafad khud apni marzi he mutcbak mokanat kham wa pukhta opne kharohe se iss ahata me taiyar karega. " meaning thereby that as per his need and convenience, the lessee may, if he so wishes also, at his own cost, con struct kacha or paeca houses. On the expiry of the lease, however, as per its terms, the lessee was requited to remove the malba of any construction made thereon.

4. The record shows that soon after taking the land on lease, the lessee put up an ice Factory there and followed this up by also constructing a residential house nearby. Sometime, around the year 1964. however, the ice Factory was shifted to Hansi and thereafter, no factory remained on the laud but the-tenant Charanji Lal continued living in his residential premises which he had constructed on the rented land.

5. According to the landlords, the shifting of the ice Factory to Hansi and the land being used thereafter for residential purposes only constituted change of user of such laud Tendering the tenants liable to ejectment on this ground.

6. The plea of the tenants on the other hand, was that the land had been let, not only for installing a factory, but for such use as they may desire and further that since 1964-65, with the consent of Jyoti Prasad and without any objection from the landlords the land was being used exclusively for residential purposes and they, could not, therefore, raise any objection on this ground now.

7. A controversy thus emerges with regard to the purpose for which the land was let and whether or not the use of the land for residential purposes only was with the consent of the landlords. A plea of waiver and acquiescence too was, in this behalf, sought to be raised for fie first time in revision here.

8. As regards the purpose of the lease, there, can be no escape from the conclusion that the land had been let for a commercial purpose. A plain reading of the terms of the lease deed exhibit R/10 would show that the right grained to the tenants to; construct houses thereon too was sub-servient to the main purpose, which was the setting up of a factory. With the factory ceasing to exist, change of user stands writ large when the laud is now being used exclusively for residential purposes.

9. The consent of the landlords to the change of user of the land from commercial to residential purposes is clearly not borne out from any material on record Admittedly, there was never any such written consent nor indeed is there any mention made by the teaant-R. W.5- Charanji Lal of even a verbal consent of the landlord in this behalf. All that Charanji Lal stated was that he had good relations with the landlord-Jyoti Parsad and that. , he Jyoti Parsad had agreed to the closing of the Ice Factory. This, on the face of it, cannot suffice to absolve the tenants from the consequences flowing from the change of user of the rented laud.

10. Equally untenable is the plea of waiver and acquiescence. The law is well settled, that the rights and obligations of the landlords and tenants have to be determined in the context of the provisions and ambit of the rent law. Where, as in the present case, the legislature speaks of "written consent of the landlord for the change of user of the rented land or premises, as the case may be, mere acquiescence or waiver provide no escape