JUDGMENT - NAIK A.B., J.:-Before proceeding to deal with the merit of the controversy raised in the writ petition, it will be appropriate to dispose of two Civil Applications which are filed by the present petitioner to bring on record the fact of sale of the property, during pendency of the writ petition. Civil Application No. 3585/2001 is filed by the petitioner bringing on record the sale deeds effected by the original owner. On both these Civil Applications this Court passed order that the application be considered at the time of hearing. On Civil Application No. 4897/98 this Court issued notice to respondent and accordingly notices were served and respondents appeared through advocate. Though respondent No. 1 in Civil Application has not filed appearance but however, reply came to be filed and Shri V. T. Choudhary appearing for the petitioner appeared for respondent No. 1 in C. A. No. 4897/98. It is not disputed before me that the owner of the property has sold it to the applicants during pendency of this writ petition as the interest came to be devolved upon them. The purchasers prayed for impleading them as respondents in this petition. Considering these two Civil Applications in the light of the provisions of Order XXII, Rule 10 of the C.P.C., I allow both the Civil Applications and take on record the sale deeds and permit the applicants in C. A. No. 4897/98 to be impleaded as respondents in their writ petition. Accordingly, both Civil Applications stand allowed. Shri Katneshwarkar, learned Advocate waives service on behalf of the added respondents. His appearance be noted in the writ petitions. Now to the facts of the writ petition. 2. By this writ petition the petitioner/original defendant No. 2 is challenging the orders passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Jalgaon and confirmed on appeal by the learned District Judge, Jalgaon. This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below. Before considering the merit of the submissions advanced by the parties the facts which are not much in dispute are to be recorded. 3. One Subhankhan Gulabkhan and Rashidkhan undisputedly were the owners of a building situate at Polanpeth, Jalgaon, having C.T.S. No. 1852. Before considering the merit of the submissions advanced by the parties the facts which are not much in dispute are to be recorded. 3. One Subhankhan Gulabkhan and Rashidkhan undisputedly were the owners of a building situate at Polanpeth, Jalgaon, having C.T.S. No. 1852. Subhankhan i.e. original plaintiff instituted R.C.S. No. 205/79 against the petitioner/ orig, defendants for possession of shop No. 2 situated towards northern side on the ground floor of the building (hereinafter referred to as the suit shop). The parties will be referred in this judgment as landlord and as this petition is filed only by defendant No. 2, he will be referred to as tenant respectively. It is contended by the landlord in the plaint that the suit shop was let out to the (defendant No. 1) for running business of optician. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 are the real brothers. It is the contention of the landlord that suit shop was leased out to the attendant for conducting of business of optician. Initially both the brothers were conducting that business. As one of brother defendant No. 1 secured accommodation in Navipeth, Jalgaon, he has shifted to that shop and running a business of optician in that shop. The defendant No. 1 without permission of the landlord inducted defendant No. 2 the suit shop to someone and closed the business of optician and started business of mutton hotel (restaurant). The landlord came to know about this fact he requested the tenant not to do so that but however without permission of the landlord the tenant started using the suit shop as a mutton hotel by closing the business of optician. Although, the landlord claimed possession of the suit premises on personal bona fide requirement but in view of the judgment of the learned District Judge rejecting the claim of the landlord on personal and bona fide requirement and subletting, it is not necessary for me to consider those facts as the landlord has not challenged those findings. The tenant only had challenged the judgments, therefore, I will be confined to the issue and the findings in respect of the change of user. 4. The landlord filed the present suit for possession of the suit property on 3-5-1979 in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Jalgaon which is numbered as R.C.S. No. 205/79. 5. After the receipt of the summons the defendants filed written statements. 4. The landlord filed the present suit for possession of the suit property on 3-5-1979 in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.) Jalgaon which is numbered as R.C.S. No. 205/79. 5. After the receipt of the summons the defendants filed written statements. The tenant contended that the suit shop was taken on lease for the purpose of business. The agreement was arrived at between deceased Gulabkhan and the tenant. It is denied that there was agreement arrived at between the parties regarding running of optician shop only. There was no condition nor restriction was imposed by deceased Gulabkhan for running another business in suit shop. The tenant has obtained the said shop for business only. It is stated that tenant was undergoing optician course in Mumbai and he was in service in Mumbai and it was agreed between defendant No. 1 and 2 (tenant) to open a shop of optician at Jalgaon and accordingly, he left his service in Mumbai and some time in 1968 shop was opened in the name and style as "Ramakant Optician". It was stated that the tenant has decided to run a mutton hotel as there was scope for running the said hotel and the tenant has started running the mutton hotel in the suit shop. It is contended that as the premises was not allotted for a specific purpose but it was allotted for conducting business as such the tenant started running mutton hotel which is also a business. It is contended that even if the tenant started mutton hotel, it will not cause any damage or inconvenience either to the building or to the landlord. With these averments it is submitted that the landlord is not entitled to seek possession of the premises. 6. Considering the pleadings it is clear that the suit is for possession of the suit shop Under section 13(1)(a), (g), (k) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging Houses Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 7. On the basis of the pleadings the learned trial Judge framed as many as 7 issues. In order to establish respective cases the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. Plaintiff Subhankhan examined as witness No. 1 for the landlord and produced some documents. Tenant examined himself as witness No. 1 and also produced some documents. 7. On the basis of the pleadings the learned trial Judge framed as many as 7 issues. In order to establish respective cases the parties adduced oral as well as documentary evidence. Plaintiff Subhankhan examined as witness No. 1 for the landlord and produced some documents. Tenant examined himself as witness No. 1 and also produced some documents. The landlord produced the notice dated 13-3-1979 issued by him to the tenant. Tenant also produced Exh. 59 the notice and the letters to the District Superintendent of Police, Jalgaon addressed by the landlord, they are at Exh. 54 and 55. On the basis of this evidence the learned trial Judge recorded a finding that the landlord proved that the suit shop was given to tenant for running business of optician shop. He further held that the landlord proved that the tenant has changed the user and contravened the provisions of the Act. The learned trial Judge recorded a finding that the landlord has proved that the suit shop is required by him for personal bona fide occupation. In view of the finding of the bona fide requirement, the learned trial Judge further held that the hardship will cause to the landlord if decree is refused. On the point of subletting the learned trial Judge held against the landlord. On the basis of the said finding the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge (J.D.) Jalgaon decreed the suit by the judgment and decree dated 30-3-1981. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court directing the eviction of the tenant i.e. defendant No. 2, preferred Civil Appeal to the District Judge, Jalgaon being Civil Appeal No. 258/1981. The learned District Judge after considering the submissions of the parties and appreciation of evidence recorded a finding that the tenants have used the suit premises for purpose other than it was leased. The learned District Judge disagree with the other findings recorded by the learned trial Judge. As the learned District Judge confirmed the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge on the point of change of user, he dismissed the appeal by his order dated 3-1-1987. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the trial Court and the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, the tenant (the defendant No. 2) has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the trial Court and the learned 2nd Additional District Judge, the tenant (the defendant No. 2) has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Shri V. T. Choudhary, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended before me that both the courts below committed manifest error in holding that starting of mutton hotel in the suit premises is change of user. The learned Advocate contended that the Court below committed an error apparent on the fact of record in not appreciating the facts that the change in business was for a temporary period only. He contended that, it is not disputed that the landlord has filed a suit against the tenant and in that suit he sought an injunction against the tenant not to run mutton hotel in the suit shop, the Civil Court restrained the tenant from conducting business of mutton hotel in the suit shop and in view of the injunction the tenant has changed over to the original business of optician. In view of this undisputed fact, the decree for eviction should not have been passed. He submitted that there was no written agreement to that effect which prohibited the tenant from using it for any other business purpose. The shop was let out only for conducting a shop without any restriction of use. As there was no written agreement to that effect as such the courts below have misdirected themselves and held that the change from one business to another business amounts to "change of user". The learned Advocate further submitted that both the courts below erred in relying on the reply given by the tenant to the notice Exh. 53 and 59. The learned Advocate further submitted that during pendency of the proceedings the landlord has sold the property and therefore, the decree passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellant Court has to be set aside on the ground as the decree under the Rent Act being personal one and the moment the landlord sell the property the successor in interest cannot claim possession on the basis of the decree, he therefore, submitted that in view of the sale of the property. The decree of eviction has become infructuous. The decree of eviction has become infructuous. Shri Choudhary, relied on the judgments of the Apex Court to indicate that change in business or temporary change in the use cannot be of any assistance to the landlord to seek a decree in case of i) (Jagdishlal v. Parma Nand)1, reported in 2000(5) S.C.C. 441 ii) (Nasruddin Appalal Bagwan v. Kala Imam Talim Trust Mandal)2, reported in 2001(Supp. 2) Bom.C.R. 308 (Rattan Lal v. Asha Rani)3, reported in 1988(3) S.C.C. 586 ; iv) (Gurdial Batra v. Raj Kumar Jain)4, reported in 1989(3) S.C.C. 441 and (Babhutmal Raichand Oswal v. Laxmibai R. Tarte another)5, reported in A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1297. 11. Per contra Shri Katneshwarkar instructed by Shri R.G. Karmarkar, learned Advocate for the landlord submitted that the suit shop was let out specifically on condition for the purpose of running optician shop and not any other use and in contravention of this condition the tenant started the mutton hotel which is not contemplated by the parties. Shri Katneshwarkar, further submitted that it is specifically pleaded that the suit shop was allotted to the tenant for running only the optician shop and as a matter of fact, the tenant has started shop in the name and style as 'Ramakant optician' but the tenant without intimation to the landlord the tenant changed its use and running a hotel in the name and style as "Ramakant mutton hotel". He therefore, submitted that the stand taken by the landlord in the plaint is supported by the notice dated 26-3-1979 Exh. 53 where the tenant admitted the fact the shop was obtained on rent of Rs. 100/ from 1-4-1968 for running optician shop and the shop in the name and style as 'Ramakant optician' is being conducted since 8-4-1964. He has pointed para 6 of the notice, where it is states that the optician shop is being conducted in the suit shop and in order to expand the business of optician, he has spent about Rs. 10,000/-. On the basis of this statement in the notice the learned Advocate submitted that undisputedly that the shop was allotted to the tenant to run the optician shop only and without any permission from the landlord the tenant has used the shop for running a mutton hotel. 10,000/-. On the basis of this statement in the notice the learned Advocate submitted that undisputedly that the shop was allotted to the tenant to run the optician shop only and without any permission from the landlord the tenant has used the shop for running a mutton hotel. Therefore, he submitted that as there is a breach of condition hence, the claim put forth by the landlord has been accepted by both the courts below and passed a decree for eviction of the tenant. The learned Advocate contended that both the courts below on appreciation of evidence have recorded a finding that the suit shop was allotted to the tenant to conduct a optician shop but he was not using it for that purpose but started and opened a mutton hotel in their suit shop. Therefore, he submitted that this petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and this Court may not interfere in the said finding. He submitted as both the courts below on the basis of the evidence have concurrently held that the tenant has used the premises for other purpose than it was let out. The learned Advocate submitted that the landlord established the fact as to the change of user, by the tenant and accordingly the decree came to be passed which calls for no interference by this Court. The learned Advocate relied on the provisions of section 13(1)(a), (k) of the Act and submitted that the landlord the has established that the tenant has in contravention of tenancy agreement has changed the use of the suit shop. He further submitted that section 13(1)(a) has to be read alongwith section 13(1)(k) of the Act and combined reading of both sections it is apparent that if there is change of use of the premises the landlord can seek eviction of a tenant. Therefore, learned Advocate submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the courts below required to be confirmed. 12. Therefore, learned Advocate submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the courts below required to be confirmed. 12. On the basis of the submissions of the learned Advocates I have to find out whether the finding which are recorded by the courts below are in consonance with the evidence of record and whether there is change of user as contemplated by the act which disentitled the tenant to continue possession of the suit shop has to be considered on the basis of the interpretation put to the provisions of section 13(1)(a) by the Apex Court and by this Court on which reliance is placed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. It is not necessary for me to reappreciate the evidence but I have to consider as to how the courts below have considered the question which is posed by the parties. It is not possible for me to accept the contention of Shri Choudhary that in view of the sale deed executed by the landlord the petition has to be allowed as the cause of action does not survive and it is to be held that the decree had become infructuous. Considering the provisions of Order XXII, Rule 7 of the C.P.C. which permits the party who has purchased the property to make an application on the Court and to get impleaded in the proceedings. As I already allowed the application filed by the purchaser, it is not necessary for me to dilute on the said question any more. I will confine only to the point to find out whether the change of user as alleged and restoration or continuation of the initial business by the tenant and entitlement of the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant from the suit shop and whether the decree passed by the courts below should be confirmed or interfered with. For this purpose I will have to refer to the issues and point for determination framed by the trial Court and the Appellate Court. 13. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings framed the following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiff prove that the suit premises was given to defendant No. 1 for the purpose of running a business of optician shop only.? 2. 13. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings framed the following issues: "1. Whether the plaintiff prove that the suit premises was given to defendant No. 1 for the purpose of running a business of optician shop only.? 2. Whether the plaintiff prove that the defendant has changed the user and as such have contravened the provision of Bombay Rent Act.?" The learned Judge on the basis of the evidence produced by the parties held thus : "From the evidence and document on record in view of the above two cases cited above I am satisfied that the defendant No. 2 has committed breach of the Bombay Rent Act and has changed the user of the suit premises without permission of the landlord and which is actionable and gives a right to the plaintiff to terminate the tenancy of the defendant No. 1 and to ask for possession of the suit premises from the defendant Nos. 1 and 2. I record my finding on issues Nos. 1, 2 and 6 in the affirmative." The learned trial Court accepted all contentions of the landlord except on the contention of subletting, and granted a decree of eviction. The tenant feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court filed appeal before the District Court. After hearing the parties, the Appellate Court has framed the following point for determination : "Whether defendants Nos. 1 and 2 used the suit premises for a purpose other than for which it was leased to them." The learned Appellate Court in paras 8, 9 and 10 has confirmed the finding recorded by the trial Court regarding change of user. The finding so recorded are based on the appreciation of evidence. As both the courts below have concurrently held that there is change of user, the tenant who has obtained the shop for doing optician business but has started mutton hotel. This being finding of fact, it cannot be interfered with by this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. That is not the end of the issue but the question is whether change from one business to another business amounts to change in use. This aspect has to be considered in the light of the provisions of the Act, and the judgment relied on by the learned Advocates on the backdrop of the findings of courts below. That is not the end of the issue but the question is whether change from one business to another business amounts to change in use. This aspect has to be considered in the light of the provisions of the Act, and the judgment relied on by the learned Advocates on the backdrop of the findings of courts below. It will be appropriate to refer to relevant provisions of section 13(1) of the Act which reads as under: "13(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of sections 15 and 15-A), a landlord small be entitled to recover possession of any premises if the Court is satisfied-- (a) that the tenant has committed any act contrary to the provision of Clause (o) of section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. ............. 13(1)(k) that the premises have not been used without reasonable cause for the purpose for which they were let for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of the suit;" The findings recorded by the courts below it is clear that the case is not covered by section 13(1)(k) but it is covered by section 13(1)(a). It is also accepted that there was no written contract between the parties which will prohibit the tenant to start business in the suit shop. On the contrary, both the courts recorded a finding that though the tenant has pleaded about the oral agreement but is was not accepted by the courts below. The shop premises is used and still being used for business purpose, whether this fact amounts to an act which is contrary to the provisions of Clause (o) of section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act. Clause (o) requires a tenant to use the property as a man of ordinary prudence, use his property and not for a purpose different to that for which it was used. In this case, the purpose of leave is for 'business' as the premises were let but for running a 'optician shop' but it was used by the tenant as mutton hotel but subsequently the tenant switched over to optician shop that too on the basis of the injunction obtained by the landlord. In this case, the purpose of leave is for 'business' as the premises were let but for running a 'optician shop' but it was used by the tenant as mutton hotel but subsequently the tenant switched over to optician shop that too on the basis of the injunction obtained by the landlord. By this, it is clear that the interest of the landlord is not prejudiced as this change in use is not actionable, as it was for a temporary phase. With this backdrop, I will proceed to deal with the authorities relied on by the Advocates. 14. I will now refer to the recent judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Nasruddin Appalal Bagwan (supra). The facts of Nasruddin's case were that the shop was let out for the purpose of running cycle shop but instead of that the defendant (tenant) started a laundry business by discontinuing his cycle shop business without seeking permission of the landlord and as such due to the change of user the defendant's tenancy was determined and landlord sought possession of the suit premises. The trial Court recorded a finding that the plaintiff has proved that defendant has changed the use of the suit premises and therefore, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The matter was taken up in appeal. The Appellate Court also found that the change of business from that of cycle shop to a laundry shop amounts to change of the user of the suit premises and concurred with the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The decree of the trial Court and that of the Appellate Court was subject-matter of writ petition in this Court. It was contended before this Court by the tenant that the premises were let out for the purpose of business and it was not disputed that the tenant started cycle shop in the suit premises. It is contended that the tenant never closed the business of cycle shop but in order to supplement his income started laundry business which was discontinued during pendency of the suit. On the premises it was submitted that the tenant continued to run the business of the cycle shop in the premises and therefore, it was contended that there has been change of user by the tenant of the premises let out to him. On the premises it was submitted that the tenant continued to run the business of the cycle shop in the premises and therefore, it was contended that there has been change of user by the tenant of the premises let out to him. The tenant relied on the judgments of the Apex Court before the learned Single Judge which are also relied on by Shri Choudhary in this case. This Court considering the findings recorded by the courts below and relying on the law declared by the Apex Court held that continuation of business of laundry and discontinuing to run the cycle shop in the suit premises was to a change of user within the meaning of section 13(1)(a) of the Act. This Court has relied on judgment of the Apex Court in Gurdial Batra's case in para 9 of the order. In the case at hand no doubt the tenant has changed the use of the shop into mutton hotel but then the landlord filed a suit against the tenant and sought mandatory injunction by which the tenant was required to shift again and continued the original business of optician shop. Applying the law declared by the Apex Court which is relied on by learned Single Judge in Nasruddin's case to the facts of this case coupled with the fact that the tenant has switched over to his original business, I have to find out whether the law laid down by the Apex Court as applied by this Court in Nasrudin (supra) can made applicable to this case and to up set the judgments of the courts below. The learned Single Judge on the similar facts and circumstances of the case the allowed the tenant's plea on the premises that though the shop was let out to run a cycle business in addition to that the tenant started a laundry but subsequently closed the laundry business and restarted the business of cycle shop. Same situation is in this case also, now. I will note the facts before the Apex Court in Jagdish Lal's (supra) case were that the shop was let out to the tenant for running business of maniyari (general merchant, ready-made and cloth merchant). Same situation is in this case also, now. I will note the facts before the Apex Court in Jagdish Lal's (supra) case were that the shop was let out to the tenant for running business of maniyari (general merchant, ready-made and cloth merchant). The landlord filed eviction proceedings under section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control) of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 for eviction of tenant on several grounds including arrears of rent, structural alterations, bona fide need and change of user for the shop for which it was let out. The application was allowed by the Rent Controller by the order dated 25-3-1995 only on the ground of change of user of the shop. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the Rent Controller. The revision filed before the High Court was dismissed which was then challenged before the Apex Court. The Apex Court after surveying several decisions of High Court and the Supreme Courts in para 18 has Rules thus : "18. On a consideration of these decisions, it comes out that where the new business started by the tenant in the premises let out to him was an allied business or a business which was ancillary to the main business, it would not amount to change of user. It is true that where a premises is let out for commercial purposes, carrying on of a new business activity therein on of a new business activity therein would not change the nature of the building and it would still remain a commercial building. But that is not enough. Having regard to the provisions of the Act and the intendment of the legislature in providing that the tenant would not use the premises for a purpose other than that for which it was let out, the new business should either have some linkage with the original business, which under the agreement of lease the tenant was permitted to carry on, or it should be an allied business or ancillary to that business. Where local laws provide a specific prohibition in respect of the use of the premises under the rent legislation and that provision has been interpreted in a particular manner by the High Court consistently, it would not be proper to disturb the course of decisions by interpreting that provision differently. 19. Where local laws provide a specific prohibition in respect of the use of the premises under the rent legislation and that provision has been interpreted in a particular manner by the High Court consistently, it would not be proper to disturb the course of decisions by interpreting that provision differently. 19. In the instant case, the premises in question was let out to the appellant for "maniyari" (general merchant) ready-made cloth merchant) business. The setting up of a restaurant therein and serving tea and cold drinks would, in the circumstances of this case, amount to change of user within the meaning of section 13. The redeeming feature, however, is that the, appellant has reverted back to his original business during the pendency of the eviction petition before the Rent Controller and for many years now has been carrying on the original business. In these circumstances, where the change of business was only for a very short period and the appellant, during the pendency of the eviction proceedings reverted to the original business which he is carrying on since, then and more particularly because all other grounds, namely, arrears of rent, structural alterations made in the premises in question and bona fide requirement of the landlord, on which the eviction of the appellant was sought, have been negatived, we feel that the ends of justice would be better served if the appellant is allowed to stay in the premises in question as a tenant, subject, however, to his paying rent at the rate of Rs. 1500/- p.m. than the original rent of Rs. 600/- p.m." Applying the law declared by the Apex Court in Jagdish Lal's case in my judgment therefore, as the tenant though temporarily used the suit shop for mutton hotel that by itself will not attract the eviction of the tenant under the provisions of section 13(1)(a) read with section 6 of the Act. It is not the case of the landlord that there was any prohibition under the local law to run a mutton hotel in suit shop. It is also not the case that by using the premises as hotel business, any damage is caused to the building but the nature of the building as commercial building remained as it is and in my judgment it will not be a change in use within the meaning of the Act. It is also not the case that by using the premises as hotel business, any damage is caused to the building but the nature of the building as commercial building remained as it is and in my judgment it will not be a change in use within the meaning of the Act. Therefore, accepting the contention of learned Counsel Shri Choudhary, that as the tenant has shifted to his original business of optician, the decree of eviction cannot be passed as it will not amount to change of user as considered by the Apex Court in case of Jagdish Lal and followed by this Court in Nasruddin's case. 15. The contention of Shri Katneshwarkar, learned Advocate for the landlord that section 13(1)(a) has to be read alongwith section 13(1)(k) and the decree is to be upheld considering the provisions of section 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(k). I fail to understand how these provisions are attracted. Even considering the notice Exh. 53 which is issued on 23-3-1979 which indicates that the tenant was running a business of optician from 8-4-1968. The business of optician was being run in suit premises from 8-4-1968 till the date of notice, in my judgment therefore, the contention of Shri Katneshwarkar that section 13(1)(a) and 13(1)(k) has to be read together has no basis at all. In order to confirm the decree, even reading both sections together, it will not help the landlord as both provisions apply in different situation. Though both the courts below have recorded a finding that the tenant has changed the use of the premises from optician to mutton hotel but that was for a temporary period till the landlord obtained injunction. The learned Advocate invited my attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in Babhutmal's case (supra) and contended that this Court under Article 227 cannot upset the findings of fact recorded by the courts below. The proposition and law declared by the Apex Court can not be doubted. The law, declared by the Apex Court is binding on this Court. But considering the case at hand, I am not upsetting any of the findings of fact recorded by the courts below nor I am appreciating the evidence on record. I am accepting the findings of fact as it is and on the facts so established, whether the decree for eviction can be passed or if passed can it be sustained. But considering the case at hand, I am not upsetting any of the findings of fact recorded by the courts below nor I am appreciating the evidence on record. I am accepting the findings of fact as it is and on the facts so established, whether the decree for eviction can be passed or if passed can it be sustained. The undisputed facts which are: a) Suit shop was let out for conducting optician shop ; b) Tenant started running mutton hotel in the suit shop by closing 'optician' shop. c) Tenant discontinued the mutton hotel and restarted the optician shop. Accepting these aspects as it is, and applying the law declared by the Apex Court in Jagdish Lal's case and that of by this Court in Nasruddin's case, the contention of the learned advocate for the landlord cannot be accepted. 16. As on today the tenant has shifted to the original business and he is running optician shop in the suit shop. Considering this aspect and applying ratio of the cases of Nasruddin and Jagdish Lal to this fact, the order passed by both the courts below cannot be sustained. In my judgement this is a fit case where this Court has to exercise the jurisdiction conferred by Article 227 of the Constitution of India and to interfere in the decree, as both the courts below have committed an error apparent on the face of record in misinterpreting section 13(1)(a) and holding that the change of user of the suit shop by tenant from optician business to mutton hotel entitles the landlord to seek possession. The said finding cannot sustain in the eye of law. Section 6 of the Act says that the provisions of the Act would be applicable to the premises let out for education, business, trade or storage. The word 'business' used in this section has to be interpreted in proper perspective. The tenant may start one type of business at initial stage and then he may start another business but the premises must be used for that purpose i.e. business. Suppose if the tenant used a premises let out for running a business and during subsistence of tenancy he changed it for residence, without the permission of the landlord or in contravention of tenancy agreement and in that situation a decree can be passed under section 13(1)(a) of the Act. Suppose if the tenant used a premises let out for running a business and during subsistence of tenancy he changed it for residence, without the permission of the landlord or in contravention of tenancy agreement and in that situation a decree can be passed under section 13(1)(a) of the Act. If the tenant use premises to other business then it cannot be said and called as change of user to attract eviction of tenant. Considering the undisputed fact that the suit shop was allotted for business purposes and the tenant used it for some time for another business and now again shifted to initial business as such in my judgement petition required to be allowed. Hence following order. 17. The judgement and order passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) in R.C.S.No. 205/1979 dated 30-3-1981 and confirmed by the learned District Judge in Civil Appeal No. 258/81 on 3-1-1987 stands set aside. Suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed. Petition is allowed. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (b). However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed. -----