JUDGMENT R. S. Singh, J. - This is the defendants appeal against the decree and judgment dated 10th July, 1970 passed by the Additional Civil (& S. C. C.) Judge, modifying the. decree and judgment of the trial court. 2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondent for the relief for the possession over the house in suit after eviction of the defendant therefrom and for recovery of Rs. 60/- as rent and damages and for cost of the suit. The suit was filed on the allegation that the defendant appellant took the house in suit on : monthly rent @ Rs. 15/- per month for residential purpose. It was alleged that the defendant had taken over the possession for no other purpose than the residential, but without the permission and consent of the plaintiff, he started his karkhan business by digging some bhatti in the house in suit and started using the same for a purpose, inconsistent with the one for which it was let out. It was further alleged that the defendant caused substantial damages and made himself liable for ejectment. The plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 22.53 p. being the amount of rent with effect from 1-11-1967 to 15-12-1967 and Rupees 37.50 as damages for use and occupation from 16-12-1967 till the filing of the suit. 3. The defendant contested the suit and alleged that the rent note relied upon by the plaintiff appellant was, in fact, a lease deed and as it was not registered according to law, the same was inadmissible in evidence. The claim of the plaintiff regarding arrears of rent was also denied. It was further alleged that the notice relied upon by the plaintiff appellant was also illegal and invalid The defendant claimed that he had not caused any damage to the premises and also that the house was used for residential purpose and for melting, moulding of utensils from the very beginning. He also claimed that he did not use the house for inconsistent purposes. The bar of Section 3 of the Act 3 of 1947 was also pleaded in this case. 4. It was held by the learned Munsif that the premises in suit was not used by the defendant for a purpose inconsistent with the one for which it was let out. The bar of Section 3 of the Act 3 of 1947 was also pleaded in this case. 4. It was held by the learned Munsif that the premises in suit was not used by the defendant for a purpose inconsistent with the one for which it was let out. It was further held that the notice appears to be illegal as the suit has been filed by the plaintiff without the permission of the District Magistrate, as provided by Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act). However, the suit was decreed for recovery of Rs. 60/- being the arrears of rent, but the suit was dismissed for possession. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against the decree and judgment of the trial court, which was set aside by the lower appellate court on the finding that the defendant is guilty of using the premises for inconsistent purposes and he is liable to be ejected. With this finding the decree of the trial court was modified by the lower appellate court and the suit was decreed for ejectment of the defendant and recovery of possession as well. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the decree of the lower appellate court mainly on the ground that the finding recorded by the lower appellate court to the effect that the defendant is guilty of using the premises for inconsistent purposes is erroneous in law. 6. According to the case of the plaintiff-respondent, the defendant took the house in suit for residential purpose, but started a Bhatti in portion of the premises for melting, moulding and making of utensils, thereby using the accommodation for the purposes inconsistent with the purpose of which he was admitted to the tenancy of the accommodation. According to the case of the defendant-appellant, he is using the house mainly for residential purposes, but in his kitchen, he has a bhatti for petty work, as only l/4th of seer of coal is needed for melting and moulding of utensils. The defendant is not using the accommodation for any purpose, which can be said to be inconsistent for the purpose, for which he was admitted to the tenancy of the accommodation. The relevant abstract of Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act (Act 3 of 1947) Is as follows:- "3. The defendant is not using the accommodation for any purpose, which can be said to be inconsistent for the purpose, for which he was admitted to the tenancy of the accommodation. The relevant abstract of Section 3 of the U. P. Control of Rent and Eviction Act (Act 3 of 1947) Is as follows:- "3. Restriction on eviction; ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... (d). That the tenant has created a nuisance or has done any act which is inconsistent with the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy of the accommodation, or which is likely to affect adversely and substantially the landlords interest therein." 7. The question, that arises for determination in this case is whether the accommodation taken by a person for residential purposes, if its portion is used by having a Bhatti for melting, moulding and making of utensils, can be considered to be inconsistent with the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy of the accommodation. In Malik Chand v. VIth Addl. District Judge (1978 (UP) RCC 98), while considering the case under Section 21 (ii) of the 3rd Proviso of the U. P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act 1972, it was held that: "In such a circumstance, it is, therefore, not possible to say that the premises was required by the petitioners for carrying on any business. As a matter of fact, what is required to be seen in such an event is the primary purpose for which the release is being sought by a landlord. If the main object or purpose is to occupy the premises for residence, merely because a room would be needed for starting the profession of a doctor or lawyer, that would not convert the use of the house from residential to non-residential." In Sant Ram v. Rajinder Lal ( AIR 1978 SC 1601 ) a cobbler has taken a shop for carrying on small trade, but he was using rear portion of the shop for cooking and sleeping. His ejectment was sought by the landlord on the ground of using the accommodation inconsistent with the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy of the accommodation. It was held that: "(i). His ejectment was sought by the landlord on the ground of using the accommodation inconsistent with the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy of the accommodation. It was held that: "(i). that it could not be held that the purpose was exclusively commercial and incompatible with any residential use, even of a portion. The legal inference to be drawn from a lease deed was conditioned by the prevailing circumstances. The intention of the parties from which the purpose of the lease was spelled out was to be garnered from the social milieu, (ii) 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 eats, he so disastrously perverts the purpose of the lease. A different purpose in the contest is not minor variations but majusculae in mode of enjoyment. This was 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 social assessment is of the judicial essence". 8. There is no dispute in this case that the defendant is still using the accommodation in dispute for residential purposes. According to the finding of both the courts by using the bhatti in his kitchen for melting, moulding and making of utensils, he has not caused any substantial damage to the premises in dispute. There is no finding in this case that on account of the use of bhatti by the defendant-appellant, any inconvenience or nuisance was caused to the landlord and other tenants of the vicinity. In Varun Gupta v. Hari Raj Swarup (1967 All LJ 600), which was relied upon by the lower appellate court, the facts were-altogether different, where the accommodation was taken for dairy purpose for selling milk, but it was converted into a work shop for repairing tractors, which was likely to cause noise and inconvenience to other tenants in the vicinity. On these facts, it was held that the accommodation was used inconsistent with the purpose for which the tenancy was created. 9. On these facts, it was held that the accommodation was used inconsistent with the purpose for which the tenancy was created. 9. In such cases the dominant purpose has to be considered. Where an accommodation has been taken by a person for residence and a portion of it is used for carrying on petty business, without causing any nuisance or inconvenience to other tenants in the vicinity or where a doctor or lawyer has taken accommodation for residential purpose and uses a room or two for professional purpose, it does not convert the residential building to non-residential purpose. 10. An inconsistent 'purpose in the context is not minor variations but majusculae in mode of enjoyment. This is not a case where a man has taken an accommodation for residential purpose, but has switched over to industrial purpose. He has stopped residing and has started industry, thereby causing noise and inconvenience to others in the vicinity. In such case, it can be said that the accommodation is being used for the purpose inconsistent with the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy of the accommodation, but the instant case is an example of a minor variation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the defendant-appellant is using the premises inconsistent with the purpose for which the accommodation was given to him. 11. In view of what has been discussed above, the appeal is allowed. The decree and judgment of the Addl. Civil and Sessions Judge, dated 10th July, 11970, is set aside and that of the Munsif, Moradabad dated 14th October, 1969, is restored. However, the parties will bear their own costs.