The central legal point established in the judgment is that the tenant's use of a portion of the premises for business purposes without written permission did not constitute a change of user under Section 20(d) of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972.

Y.K.Sangal. J.

1. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the orders dated 08th December, 1988 passed by the opposite party no. 2/Additional Judge, Small Causes Lucknow in SCC Suit NO. 370 of 1981and 23rd October, 1991 passed by opposite party no. 1/Vth Additional District Judge, Lucknow in SCC Revision No. 36 of 1989.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. From perusal of the record it reveals that this is a dispute between the landlord and the tenant. Both original landlord i.e. respondent no. 3 and tenant/petitioner have died during the pendency of the writ petition and their heirs have been substituted. Decree for eviction was sought on three grounds by the landlord that U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is not applicable on the building in dispute and the defendant/tenant has committed default in payment of the rent and he also use the building for other purposes than that of it was let out. By the concurrent finding, both the courts below held that provisions of the Act No. 13 of 1972 are applicable on the building in dispute. Suit of the plaintiff was also not decreed by both the courts below on the ground of default committed by the tenant for payment of the rent because on the date of first hearing in the suit all the dues i.e. cost of the suit, interest on the amount, due rent and mesne profit etc. were deposited in the SCC suit under Section 20 (d) of the Act and it was further held that tenant and his family members were not having any other accommodation in their possession in the area of Nagar Nigam, Lucknow so it was held that the tenant is not liable for ejectment on these two grounds. Finding of the trial court were not challenged by the landlord by filing the revision. After the decision of the revisional court also he did not file any writ petition before this Court challenging the above concurrent findings of both the courts below. At the time of final arguments in the writ petition, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 3 & 4 again has not challenged the findings of both the courts as above. In counter affidavit of respondent also in paragraph 21, it was stated that impugned order passed by the opposite party no. 1 & 2 are perfectly valid and in accordance with law. They did not suffer from any legal infirmity. From the above, it is clear that these findings of both the courts below are final.

4. Suit of the plaintiff for ejectment of the defendant-tenant was decreed only on the ground of inconsistent user of the building by the tenant without prior permission in writing from the landlord.

As per case of the plaintiff, house in dispute was let out to the defendant tenant for residential purpose but later on tenant's son without prior permission of the landlord in writing started to use one outer room of the house for business purpose. His son is doing General Merchandise business there. On the other hand, case of the defendant-tenant is that originally this outer room was let out for business purposes by the landlord at the rate of Rs. 20 per month in the year, 1968 but later on whole of the house including that outer room was let out to the defendant-tenant. Both the courts below have not accepted the case of the defendant-tenant so the findings were challenged in the writ petition by the tenant.

5. The building can be let out for the following three purposes.

1.Residential

2.Business

3.Manufacturing

If the dominant purpose for which the building is let out is maintained, the tenant may not become liable to be evicted. But if the building is let out for residential and business purposes or the tenant starts manufacturing activities or vice versa or in place of residential purpose starts business in the same then it would amount to change of user subject to the provisions of the Act. After the amendment under Section 20 in the Act, the tenant can neither use the building nor can do act which is inconsistent with the purp