JUDGMENT A.N.Dikshita, J. 1. This is a revision under section 25 of the Small Causes Court Act against the judgment and order dated 7-10-1988 passed by the Additional District Judge/Special Judge, E. C. Act, decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff opposite party (landlord) and ordering the eviction of the applicant (tenant) from the shop in dispute. 2. The facts in brief are these : The opposite party filed suit no. 18 of 1986 against the applicant on the allegations that the shop in dispute was taken by the applicant on the basis of an agreement to the effect that the applicant would carry on the business of tobacco, Bin, Match Boxes etc. in it and would not transact any other business in it ; that lateron the applicant started business of general merchandise in the shop in dispute ; that the applicant was thus guilty of inconsistent user of the shop ; that the applicant had made material alterations in the shop by removing the old wooden fixtures and putting new ones of his own choice ; that the applicant was in arrears of rent at the time of the notice and was thus a defaulter within the meaning of section 20 (2) (a) of U. P. Act 13 of 1972 ; that the applicant was also guilty of sub-letting the shop to another person ; and that after the determination of the tenancy the applicant was liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 190/- per month. The relief claimed in the suit was for the eviction of the applicant from the shop in dispute and a decree for arrears of rent and damages. To sum up, the main controversies raised before the trial court were : 1. Whether the applicant was entitled to start some other business in the shop in dispute instead of the business for which the shop was let out to him and thus he was guilty of inconsistent user. 2. Whether the applicant had made material alterations, in the shop thus causing loss to the opposite party. 3. Whether the applicant was guilty of sub-letting. 4.Whether the tenancy of the applicant stood determined and he was liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 190/- per month ; and 5. Whether the applicant was defaulter within the meaning of section 20 (2) (a) of the Act. 3. 3. Whether the applicant was guilty of sub-letting. 4.Whether the tenancy of the applicant stood determined and he was liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 190/- per month ; and 5. Whether the applicant was defaulter within the meaning of section 20 (2) (a) of the Act. 3. The suit was contested by the applicant denying the allegations in the plaint. 4. On the basis of the evidence adduced in the case on behalf of the parties and hearing arguments the trial court recorded the findings : 1. That the applicant was guilty of inconsistent user of the shop as he had started a business in the shop in dispute for which it was not let out; 2. That the applicant had not made material alterations in the shop in dispute and had not caused any damage to the opposite party ; 3. That the applicant had not guilty of sub-letting ; 4. That the tenancy of the applicant stood determined after the service of notice and he was liable to pay damages ; and 5. That the applicant was not a defaulter within the meaning of section 20 (2) (a) of the Act. Merely on the basis of the findings that the applicant was guilty of inconsistent user within the meaning of section 20 (2) (d) of the Act and that the tenancy of the applicant stood determined after the service of notice the trial court has decreed the suit for the eviction of the applicant from the shop; in dispute and has also decreed the suit for recovery of damages from the applicant. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. At the outset it might be stated here that in view of the findings of the trial court that the applicant was not a defaulter and that he had not made material alterations in the shop in dispute it was not open to the trial court to grant damages after the date of service of notice. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that even if at some subsequent stage the applicant used the shop in dispute for a business Other than the one for which it was let out finding that the old business was not profiteering to him, the provisions of section 20 (2) (d) were not violated and the applicant was not liable to eviction. Learned counsel for the applicant has also assailed the finding in regard to recovery of damages for future use and occupation on the ground that in view of the findings of the trial court that the applicant was neither defaulter nor had made material alterations such a relief could not be granted. The contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant have force. 6. On the other hand learned counsel submitted that the judgment and decree of the trial court were validly passed and did not suffer from perversity. He, however, could not substantiate his submission by the evidence on record. The agreement relied upon by the trial court that the applicant had agreed to do business of a specified item is clearly hit by Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India which confer right on all the citizens of India to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. The conclusion of the the trial court on this issue border on perversity and is incompatible to conscience If a person finds a particular business less profitable or causing loss to him it is always open to him to start another business as guaranteed by Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution. of course if the business being run by the applicant was in any way unlawful and prohibited by law a decree for eviction of the tenant could be passed, but this is not the case of the opposite party. 7. As regards recovery of damages from the applicant I have already held above that such a decree could not be passed which was in the teeth of the own findings of the trial court. 8. Pursuant to what has been stated above the judgment and decree of the trial court cannot be sustained and deserve to be set aside. In the result the revision is allowed and the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 7-10-1988 are set aside in so far as they decree the suit for the eviction of the applicant and grant damages to the opposite party. The applicant shall, however, deposit the entire decretal amount besides other dues within one month from today. No order as to costs. Revision allowed.