JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---This Writ Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the Judgment of the Joint District Judge, Pune in Civil Appeal No. 463 of 1985. 2. The petitioners are the trustees for a private trust of Anandibai Raghunath Karkare others. The suit property bearing No. CTS No. 917/19-B situated at Shivaji Nagar, Pune was purchased by Shri D.G. Shembekar and Mrs. G. Shembekar, in their capacities as trustees, sometime in the year 1951 by a registered sale deed. A portion of the said house consisting of 5 rooms was in occupation of the respondent company as a monthly tenant on payment of Rs. 94.50 as rent in addition to permitted increases. It is stated that the suit premises were let out to the respondent for office use only. 3. That the said Shri D.G. Shembekar instituted suit in the Court of Additional Small Causes, Pune being C.S. No. 2848 of 1981 against the respondent. The suit was filed for possession of the suit premises on various grounds, inter alia, arrears, bona fide, requirements, change of user and non-user. For the present, we are concerned only with the ground of change of user and non-user, as the petitioners have confined arguments only with regard to those two grounds. 4. The Trial Court on the basis of rival pleadings and evidences, both documentary and oral, adduced by parties, was pleased to dismiss the suit on all the grounds. The Trial Court held that the petitioners had failed to make out any ground for evicting the respondent. 5. Against the said decision, the matter went up in appeal before the District Judge, Pune being Civil Appeal No. 263 of 1985. Even the Appellate Court by the impugned order dated 31-3-1987 has confirmed the said findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioners, while challenging the aforesaid orders, has mainly contended that the view taken by both the courts below in respect of ground of non-user of the suit premises for a period preceding 6 months before the date of institution of the suit and that of change of user of the suit premises, is totally wrong and error apparent on the face of the record. According to the petitioners, it would be manifest injustice if the said findings, though concurrently recorded by the courts below, are not upset in so far as the grounds of change of user and non-user of the suit premises are concerned. The learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on common material to press the aforesaid grounds, as according to him, if it is held that the respondent had changed the user of the premises it would necessarily follow that the respondent was not using the suit premises for the purposes of section 13(1)(k) of the Act of Bombay Rent Act. In as much as the user cannot be said to be for the purpose for which the suit premises were let and thus, it would amount to premises being not used within the purport of section 13(1)(k) of the Act. To support this proposition, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in (1979 Maharashtra Law Journal 315)1. The petitioner have mainly relied on the pleadings of the parties as well as oral and documentary evidence. Strong reliance has been placed on the oral evidence of the plaintiff - P.W. 1, the Rent Controller Shri Phansalkar P.W. 2 as well as on the admissions made by the respondent/defendant in his evidence of P.W. 1. In addition to this, what has been emphasised is that during the pendency of the appeal before the District Court, the petitioners had moved an application for appointment of Court Commissioner to report the fact situation with regard to the suit premises. It is matter of record that the said application was resisted by the respondent, nevertheless the Appellate Court by order dated 10-7-1985 appointed the Court Commissioner to submit the report. One Shri G.V. Datar, Advocate was appointed as the Court Commissioner, who personally visited the suit premises and after recording the statements of the persons available in the premises and the neighbouring premises, submitted report dated 1-8-1985. The report would indicate that one table, two iron chairs and one glass cupboard were lying in the suit premises. It also records that some books were lying in the suit premises which are unrelated to the business of the respondent. It is also found that some persons belonging to group "Geetai" were occupying the premises and their personal belongings were lying scattered in the premises. It also records that some books were lying in the suit premises which are unrelated to the business of the respondent. It is also found that some persons belonging to group "Geetai" were occupying the premises and their personal belongings were lying scattered in the premises. In other words, according to the petitioners, the Commissioner's Report was sufficient to uphold the stand taken by the petitioners that the respondent had changed the user of the suit premises and for which reason alone the petitioners were also entitled for decree of eviction on the ground of non-user of the suit premises. 7. Although the respondents have been duly served, none appears for the respondent. 8. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and after carefully examining the records including two decisions, which are under challenge I would first prefer to deal with the issue of change of user of the suit premises. In support of this ground, the plaintiffs have not only examined himself but also the Rent Controller P.W. 2. Even the evidence of P.W. 1 clearly indicates the position that the suit premises were initially let out for office use only. On careful examination of the Court Commissioner, which is Exhibit 12 dated 1-8-1985, it is clearly established from the record that the respondent had changed the user of the suit premises, in as much as the premises were no longer used for office. In support of this, reference has been made to the various circumstances which can be culled out from the record. It is matter of record that there is no regular office staff employed by the respondent in the suit premises. Reference has been made to the electricity bills and telephone bills. Electricity bills have been adduced by the respondent, in support of the plea that the respondent was running the office from the suit premises on regular basis. The Commissioner's Report would however, clearly clinch the issue in as much as it indicates that the suit premises were occupied by persons who are 'padyatris' and following the religious belief, namely the group known as 'Geetai'. Most of the personal belongings lying in the suit premises were of the said persons who had no connection with the business activity of the respondent. The report would also indicate that the respondent is not using the suit premises for his office use as contended. Most of the personal belongings lying in the suit premises were of the said persons who had no connection with the business activity of the respondent. The report would also indicate that the respondent is not using the suit premises for his office use as contended. It is important to note that although the Commissioner's Report was filed and accepted before the Appellate Court, no attempt has been made by the respondent for cross-examination as required under Order 2, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In that sense, the report, submitted by the Court Commissioner, is final and remained unchallenged. This was sufficient enough to conclude that the respondent has changed the user of the suit premises and was liable to be evicted on that ground. Besides the report, there are other supporting circumstances which also lead to the same conclusion that the respondent had changed the user of the suit premises without reasonable cause. In the circumstances, although the two courts below have concurrently held in favour of the respondent that the petitioners had failed to make out a ground of change of user, I am afraid the said findings cannot be affirmed as the same are clearly error apparent on the face of the record. If such erroneous finding is allowed to stand on record, it would cause manifest injustice to the petitioners which cannot be countenanced. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioners had relied on the decision of this Court reported in 1979 Maharashtra Law Journal 315. According to him, at page 318, the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court has already taken the view that in case where change of user from one of which the lease is granted if proved, would also amount to non-user of the premises in terms of the Clause 13(1)(k) of the Act. This observation is found at page 318 of the said decision which is reproduced thus : "Clause (k) of section 13(1) to which our attention was drawn by Mr. Advani can also furnish some clue in this behalf. This clause enable the landlord to evict his tenant when the premises are found to have been not used by him continuously for six months, without any reasonable cause. However, change of purpose of the user from the one for which the lease is granted, also amounts to non-user in terms of this clause." (Emphasis applied). 10. This clause enable the landlord to evict his tenant when the premises are found to have been not used by him continuously for six months, without any reasonable cause. However, change of purpose of the user from the one for which the lease is granted, also amounts to non-user in terms of this clause." (Emphasis applied). 10. Following the said decision, it will have to be held that since the case of change of user has been established from the record, it would necessarily follow that the respondent is liable to be evicted also on the ground of non-user of the suit premises for the purpose for which the same were let out. I have already pointed out that the materials for the ground of change of user and that of non-user are more or less overlapping. The evidence which is referred to above would clearly indicate that the ground of non-user of the suit premises has been made out in law. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment, passed by the courts below deserve to be reversed and the suit filed by the petitioners against the respondent is decreed on the ground of change of user and non-user of the suit premises. 12. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed with costs. The rule is made absolute. The judgment passed by the Joint District Judge, Pune dated 31-3-1987 in Civil Appeal No. 463 of 1981 and Judgement dated 11-10-1984 passed by the Additional Small Causes Judge, Pune in C.S. No. 2848 of 1981 are quashed and set aside. Instead, the aforesaid suit for possession filed by the petitioners against the respondent stands decreed. C.C. expedited. P.A. to issue ordinary copy of this order. Parties to act on the copy duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court. Writ petition allowed. -----