ORDER S.S. Dhavan, J. - This is a tenant's second appeal from the decree of the Additional Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar reversing that of the Additional Munsif of Muzaffarnagar and decreeing the landlords suit for his ejectment from an accommodation. 2. The Plaintiff-Respondents Hari Raj Swarup and eleven others are the joint owners and landlords of the ahata in which the shop of the Defendant-Appellant Varun Gupta is situate. The Respondents filed a suit for the Appellant's ejectment on four grounds--(1) non-payment of rent inspite of notice of demand, (2) illegal subletting, (3) using the premises for a purpose inconsistent with the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy and (4) creating nuisance. 3. The Defendant-Appellant resisted the suit and denied the allegations of the Plaintiff-Respondents. 4. The trial court held that the Appellant had not committed any default in the payment of rent nor of illegal subletting. It also found that the Appellant had not used the premises in a manner inconsistent with the original purpose of the tenancy nor had he committed any nuisance. Accordingly, it dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned Civil Judge affirmed the finding of the trial court that the Appellant had not committed any default in payment of rent nor had he sublet the accommodation. But he disagreed with the trial court on the question of the manner of use of the accommodation by the Appellant and held that he was now using it for a purpose inconsistent with the original purpose of the tenancy and had also created nuisance. He reversed the decision of the trial court and decreed the ejectment of the Appellant who has now come here in second appeal. 5. Mr. N.S. Singhal argued that the finding of the court below that the tenant had used the premises for a purpose inconsistent with the original purpose of the tenancy is erroneous. It is necessary to state a few facts. The Appellant has been a tenant of the house for well over thirty years. He opened a dairy shop in the premises almost immediately after being admitted as a tenant. The business consisted of purchasing milk from milk men and selling it to customers who came for the milk. This shop was opened about the year 1930. In 1958 the Appellant closed this business and opened a sort of workshop for the repairs of the tractors. The business consisted of purchasing milk from milk men and selling it to customers who came for the milk. This shop was opened about the year 1930. In 1958 the Appellant closed this business and opened a sort of workshop for the repairs of the tractors. The Plaintiff-Respondents alleged in their plaint that soon after repairing work commenced they received complaints from their other tenants that the noise disturbed them. The Plaintiffs witnesses deposed that the tractors awaiting repairs in the Appellant's shop were parked outside in the ahata belonging to the Plaintiffs. On these facts the Civil Judge held that by changing his business from a dairy shop to a repair workshop the Appellant was using the accommodation for a purpose inconsistent with the purpose for which he was admitted as a tenant. I think he was right. Mr. Singhal argued that there was no evidence that the Appellant had beer; restricted under the terms of a tenancy to a dairy shop. He pointed out that the only evidence on this point was that of the Plaintiffs' Munim who had admitted in the cross-examination that he entered the service of the Plaintiff a few years after the commencement of the tenancy. Learned Counsel argued that his entire evidence on this point should have been rejected as hearsay. I agree that the evidence of the Munim was inadmissible. But on broad facts it must be held that the original purpose oi the tenancy was not to open a repair workshop. It is common experience that a landlord before letting out a shop to a prospective tenant will ask him about the nature of the business he proposes to set up in the shop. The Appellant must have informed the landlord that he wanted to start a dairy shop and the landlord agreed to allot the shop to him on this understanding. After nearly 28 years he decided to open a workshop for repairing tractors. This means using the accommodation for a purpose inconsistent with the original purpose of the tenancy. 6. Mr. Singhal contended that the mere fact that the new business is different from the old does not make it inconsistent with the purpose of tenancy. It is true that Section 3(1)(d) contains the words "inconsistent with the purpose" and not "different from the purpose". 6. Mr. Singhal contended that the mere fact that the new business is different from the old does not make it inconsistent with the purpose of tenancy. It is true that Section 3(1)(d) contains the words "inconsistent with the purpose" and not "different from the purpose". This means that a tenant may use the accommodation for a purpose different from the original one provided it is not inconsistent with it. A grocers shop is different from a booksellers but both are shops and if the grocer opens a book stall in his shop, he does not use the accommodation for a purpose inconsistent with the original purpose of the tenancy. 7. But in the present case the purpose is not only different but inconsistent with the original one. A dairy is merely a shop for selling milk--a commercial enterprise, but a workshop for repairing tractors is in the nature of an industrial enterprise, requiring the use of mechanical tools. The work of repairing tractors is industrial and not commercial in nature. It is likely to create noise which will inconvenience other tenants in the vicinity. It also means that vehicles awaiting repairs have to be parked outside the shop unless it is big enough to accommodate all of them. I am, therefore, of the opinion that a tenant who takes the accommodation for opening a dairy shop cannot afterwards, without the permission of the landlord, open a workshop for repairing tractors and if he does, he is guilty of using the accommodation for a purpose inconsistent with the one for which he was admitted to the tenancy. 8. In view of this it is not necessary for me to decide whether the opening of the workshop amounted to the creation of nuisance. The landlords proved that the tenant had used the accommodation for a purpose inconsistent with the original purpose of the tenancy and therefore, their suit for ejectment was competent without the permission of the District Magistrate. 9. The appeal is dismissed with costs.