JUDGMENT : 1. This is plaintiff's civil second appeal and arises out of the suit filed by him against defendant for ejectment and for recovery of arrears of rent. 2. The plaintiff is the owner of the house No. 4 in Bada Sarafa, Indore. The defendant took on lease 3 rooms on the ground floor of the aforesaid house on a monthly rent of Rs. 15 Vide Ex. P-1 which is the rent note. The tenancy commences on 1-12-1941. In the rent note it is stated The plaintiff gave notice to the defendant terminating his tenancy on the ground that the defendant is using the three rooms leased for purposes other than those for which they are actually let out. 3. The defendant did not vacate and hence this suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. 4. The main contention of the defendant is that he has taken 3 rooms on the ground floor of the aforesaid house for business as well as residence. 5. The defendant denies having violated any of the terms of the lease and that he offered arrears of rent but the plaintiff refused to accept the same. The defendant urged that the plaintiff wants to enhance the rent and hence all this trouble. The defendant claims protection under Indore House Rent Control Order. 6. The trial Court held that the defendant had not violated the conditions of the lease. The premises in dispute are fit for residential purpose and hence dismissed the plaintiff's 'suit for ejectment. The plaintiff's claim for arrears of rent of Rs. 82-8-0 from 1-9-1947 to 15-2-1948 was decreed. 7. The plaintiff went up in appeal but the District Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of trial Court, Hence this second appeal by the plaintiff. 8. It appears to me that the defendant has not infringed any of the condition of the lease deed Ex. P-1. On a careful perusal of the lease deed Ex. P-l it appears to me that it does not indicate that the 3 rooms are let out exclusively for the purposes of carrying on business; on the contrary the evidence is that the defendant with his family is residing in Khajuribazar and occasionally be resides in Bada Sarafa house. 9. In my opinion the main criterion is the suitability of the leased premises for the purpose of residence. 9. In my opinion the main criterion is the suitability of the leased premises for the purpose of residence. The purpose to which the building or part of it may be put is not the dominant factor. The test is, is the building suitable as a place of residence? If it is, then it is a house as defined in the Indore Rent Control Order and the tenant is protected. There is a concurrent finding by both the lower Courts that the premises in suit is suitable for residential purposes. It consists of 3 rooms and Osari and the Chowk. The premises has also got the arrangement for a water pipe and a latrine. 10. For these reasons, I confirm the judgment and decree of the lower Court and dismiss the appeal with costs.