JUDGMENT K.N. Seth, J. - This revision by the tenant arises out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and mesne profits. In this revision the validity of the decree of eviction alone has been challenged. 2. The decree for eviction was sought on the ground that the tenant has without the consent in writing of the landlord used the premises for a purpose other than the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy of the building According to the plaintiff-landlord the building was let out for residential purposes but the tenant used the premises as a tea stall. The stand taken by the tenant was that the premises was taken on rent for business-cum-residential purposes. He also asserted that no room of the premises in suit was being used as tea stall and no part of it was used for business purposes. The trial court decreed the suit for eviction on the finding that the building was let out for a residential purpose and that one of the rooms was used as a tea stall. That decree has been affirmed by the learned District Judge. 3. It has not been disputed before me that the building was let out only for residential purposes. The question for consideration is whether on the finding recorded, it could be held that tenant has used the premises for a purpose other than the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy. The finding of fact recorded by the learned Judge is "that the tenant has been running a tea and cigarette shop and to that and he has put a Takhat outside the house. It has two racks, one of which abuts the wall of the house. A part of this Takhat is on the Pushta of the house and below its Chajja" There is no dispute that just outside the premises in dispute is the Municipal land. The business activity is carried on from the shop on the Municipal land. It has been found accepting the testimony of the plaintiff that some times the outer room is used by the customers who come to take tea. There is no dispute that out of the 3 rooms in the tenancy of the applicant, two rooms are exclusively used for residential purposes. It has been found accepting the testimony of the plaintiff that some times the outer room is used by the customers who come to take tea. There is no dispute that out of the 3 rooms in the tenancy of the applicant, two rooms are exclusively used for residential purposes. Only the outer room is some time used by the customers and is also used for preparing tea. Such a user of a part of the accommodation would not mean that the building was used for a purpose other than for which the tenant was admitted to the tenancy. It is the dominant use of the building that has to be taken into consideration. If the building is used by and large for residential purpose and only a small or insignificant portion is put to business use and that too only on occasions the user cannot be held to be for a purpose other than for which the building was let out. It neither changes the nature of the building nor its user. The use of only a part of the building in connection with the tea stall maintained by the applicant cannot be characterised as user for a purpose other than for which he was admitted to tenancy. I am supported in my view by the decisions in Dr. Bashir Uddin v. District Judge, Bulandshahr and others, 1978(1) R.C.J. 199 and Sant Ram v. Rajinder Lal and others, 1979(1) R.C.J. 13 . In the latter case, the Supreme Court observed : "It is impossible to hold that if a tenant who takes out petty premises for carrying on a small trade also stays in the rear portion cooks and easts, he so disastrously perverts the purpose of the lease. A different 'purpose' in the context is not minor variations but majuscule in mode of enjoyment. This is not a case of a man switching over to a canteen business or closing down the cobbler shop and converting the place into a residential accommodation. On the other hand, the common case is that the cobbler continued to be cobbler and stayed in the shop at night on days when he was running his shop but left for his home on shop holidays. A sense of proportion in special assessment is of the judicial essence." 4. On the other hand, the common case is that the cobbler continued to be cobbler and stayed in the shop at night on days when he was running his shop but left for his home on shop holidays. A sense of proportion in special assessment is of the judicial essence." 4. In my opinion, the plaintiffs-opposite party was not entitled to a decree for eviction and the courts below erred in granting that decree. 5. In the result, the revision is allowed. The decree of eviction passed against the applicant is set aside. The decree for recovery of rent and mesne profits, however, is affirmed. Parties shall bear their own costs.