JUDGMENT - J.N. PATEL, J.:---Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner-original tenant has impugned the judgment and decree dated 27th September, 1984 passed by the IInd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kolhapur in Regular Civil Suit No. 266 of 1980 and the judgment and order dated 19th July, 1988 passed by the IInd Additional District Judge, Kolhapur in Civil Appeal No. 362 of 1984. 3. The respondent-original plaintiff landlord filed a suit for eviction of the petitioner-original defendant tenant under section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short "Bombay Rent Act") on the ground of change of user of the premises let out to the defendant tenant. 4. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant was let out the premises only for the purpose of running a cycle shop. Instead of that, the defendant started a laundry business by discontinuing his cycle shop business without seeking permission of the plaintiff and therefore due to this change of user, the defendant's tenancy was determined and the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit premises along with the other ancillary reliefs. 5. It was the defendant's case that he was let out the shop premises for the purpose of business and it was not restricted only for running the cycle shop, that at no point of time the defendant has discontinued his cycle shop but has merely started a laundry to supplement his income which has been subsequently discontinued and therefore it does not amount to change of user and the plaintiff's suit should be dismissed with costs. 6. The learned trial Court found that the plaintiff has proved that the defendant has changed the user of the suit premises and therefore decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff by his judgment and decree dated 27th September, 1984. The matter was taken up in appeal and the learned Appellate Court also found that the change of business from that of cycle shop to a laundry amounts to change of user of the suit premises, and concurring to the finding of the trial Court dismissed the appeal of the defendant tenant. This is how the petitioner tenant is before this Court. 7. This is how the petitioner tenant is before this Court. 7. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was let out the premises for the purpose of business and though it is not disputed that the petitioner started a cycle shop in the suit premises, it is submitted that the petitioner never closed his business of cycle shop, but in order to supplement his income started a laundry which was discontinued during the pendency of the suit. It is submitted that the petitioner continues to run the business of cycle shop in the premises and therefore it cannot be said that there has been any change of user by the petitioner of the premises let out to him and therefore the finding of the two courts below is contrary to the facts and law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The learned Counsel placed reliance on the case of (Gurdial Batra v. Raj Kumar Jain)1, reported in 1989(3) S.C.C. 441 , and that of (Jagdish Lal v. Parma Nand)2, reported in 2000(5) S.C.C. 44 in support of her submissions that even if it is accepted that the petitioner started a laundry in the suit premises, it was only for a short period and then continued to run his cycle shop, it would not amount to change of user entailing liability of eviction. 8. The learned Counsel for the respondent landlord submits that the requirement to pass a decree of eviction is that if the tenant changes the user of the premises, that itself is sufficient to evict him. It is submitted that in the present case, the premises were rent out on a monthly rent of Rs. 35/- as per the rent note (Exhibit 25) which clearly mentions that the premises were let out for running a cycle shop and therefore the plaintiff tenant having changed the user by starting a laundry in the suit premises is enough to pass a decree of eviction against him. It is submitted that there has been concurrent finding of fact of the two courts below which need not be interfered by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Mr. It is submitted that there has been concurrent finding of fact of the two courts below which need not be interfered by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. Mr. Dani submitted that section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act is activated as soon as there is a change of user and the Court cannot take into consideration the subsequent events and therefore the case of the petitioner that though he had started a laundry business and then discontinued it and again continued the business of cycle shop would not come to his rescue and therefore the petition deserves to be dismissed. 9. It has come in the evidence of the parties before the trial Court that the petitioner was let out the suit premises for carrying on his business of running a cycle shop, but thereafter he started running a laundry in addition to that of cycle shop. It is not disputed that during the time the matter was taken up by the trial Court for recording evidence, the petitioner had discontinued the business of laundry and continued to run the cycle shop in the suit premises. In this fact situation, the finding of the two courts below that the defendant has changed the user of the suit premises cannot be sustained. In the case of Gurdial Batra (supra), the Apex Court held as follows:--- "The restriction which is statutorily provided in section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Act is obviously one to protect the interest of the landlord and is intended to restrict the use of the landlord's premises taken by the tenant under lease. It is akin to the provision contained in section 108(0) of the Transfer of Property Act dealing with the obligations of a lessee. A house let for residential purpose would not be available for being used as a shop even without structural alteration. The concept of injury to the premises which forms the foundation of Clause (b) is the main basis for providing Clause (b) of section 13(2)(ii) as a ground for the tenant's eviction. The landlord parts with possession of the premises by giving a lease of the property to the tenant for consideration. Ordinarily, as long as the interest of the landlord is not prejudiced, a small change in the user would not be actionable. The landlord parts with possession of the premises by giving a lease of the property to the tenant for consideration. Ordinarily, as long as the interest of the landlord is not prejudiced, a small change in the user would not be actionable. In this case, the premises was let out for running of a repair shop. Along with the repair business, sale of television was temporarily carried on. This did not constitute a change of user within the meaning of section 13(2)(ii)(b) so as to give a cause of action to the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant." 10. Therefore, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the two courts below were in error in holding that the plaintiff is entitled for possession of the suit premises on the ground of non-user of the suit premises by the defendant for the purpose it was let out as contemplated under section 13(1)(a) of the Bombay Rent Act. The judgment and decree of the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court is quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. Certified copy expedited. Petition allowed. -----