Short Note This is second appeal. The following substantial questions of law were framed at the time of admission of the appeal: (1) Whether merely by putting a tea-stall in a small portion of verandah would change the purpose of residential lease when the leased premises consisting of two rooms are still exclusively used for residence? (2) Whether under the facts and circumstances the decree for ejectment u/s 12(1)(c) of the Act can be passed on the ground of nuisance in absence of a finding that the alleged mischief is likely to affect adversely and substantially the interest of landlord? There is a concurring finding of fact of the trial Court and the first appellate Court that the defendant-tenant has started using the verandah of the suit-accommodation as a tea-shop. Two rooms of this accommodation are being used by the defendant for residence. The accommodation was initially let out for residential purpose only. By opening the tea-shop the defendant' has done an act which is inconsistent with the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy' within the meaning of section 12(1)(c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). It is argued on behalf of the appellant that opening tea-shop in the verandah does not amount to inconsistent user of the accommodation which had been let out for residential purpose as two rooms are still being used for the residential purpose. Reliance has been placed on Harbilas v. Bhagwan Das (1980 MPRCJ Note 16). That was not a case under section 12(1)(c) of the Act. In that case the eviction was claimed on the basis of composite need. The premises was let out for residential purpose. In that context it was held that 'tenant's' use of a portion as a tea-stall, would not change the purpose of letting, nor would the accommodation become non-residential. The accommodation. therefore, could not be claimed for composite need". In the present case, the defendant opened a tea-shop in the verandah and that was contrary to the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy. The visit of customers in the tea-shop is not consistent with the residential purpose. That would be a sort of creating a nuisance and that is likely to affect adversely and substantially the interest of the landlord in the accommodation. The visit of customers in the tea-shop is not consistent with the residential purpose. That would be a sort of creating a nuisance and that is likely to affect adversely and substantially the interest of the landlord in the accommodation. In such a situation no substantial question of law arises and it would not be proper to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact of the two Courts holding that the defendant is liable to eviction under section 12(1)(c) of the Act. Both the questions are answered accordingly. The appeal is dismissed.