JUDGMENT : 1. - While admitting this second appeal on 18.4.1994, this Court framed the following substantial questions of law:- 1. Whether the defendant-respondent has created nuisance and had done any act which is inconsistent with the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy ? 2. Whether the defendant-respondent has not used the demised premises without reasonable cause for the purpose for which it was let out for a continuous period of six months preceding the date of such user ? 2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for eviction against the defendant-respondent on the ground that the two rooms situated over the garage were let out to the defendant-respondent on 1.5.1977. It is also stated that the kitchen, latrine and bath-room are situated in the room. The grounds for eviction are default in payment of rent, causing nuisance by putting one big box in the passage obstructing the way leading towards the garage, using the water connection in such a manner which is causing the nuisance in passage resulting into falling of the plaintiff himself and because of this water seepage, the building is being damaged and the last ground for eviction is that the suit premises was taken on rent by the defendant for his own residential purpose but now, the defendant has started his office of advocate in one of the rooms since last more than six months. 3. The defendant denied the allegation of the plaintiff and submitted that the defendant was having his household goods including some heavy articles and one of which was a large box. The defendant, when took the premises on rent, he entered with all his household goods including this large box. Since the staircase was short, therefore, it was not possible to put the box in the rented premises which was in the upstairs. Therefore, from the day of start of tenancy this box was lying in the garage. The defendant also put his cycle and cot in the garage for which he was paying Rs. 10/- extra to the landlord. It is also submitted that other tenants were also used to put their scooters and cycle in the garage. Therefore, from the day of start of tenancy this box was lying in the garage. The defendant also put his cycle and cot in the garage for which he was paying Rs. 10/- extra to the landlord. It is also submitted that other tenants were also used to put their scooters and cycle in the garage. It is also submitted that one saint came from village Siwana, then the plaintiff requested that the garage is required for keeping the car of the saint, therefore, the goods lying in the garage may be put somewhere else, for which the defendant agreed. The plaintiff himself, with the help of his own person, put his box outside the garage but, thereafter, he refused to permit the defendant for putting the box in the garage. Keeping the box in the way is one of the grounds of dispute between the parties. 4. The trial court framed seven issues. The plaintiff gave his own statement before the trial court as P.W.1 and produced witnesses P.W. 2-Gopi Kishan and P.W.3-Paras Mal, whereas the defendant himself appeared in the witness-box. The defendant produced witnesses D.W.2-Dhan Ram, D.W.3-Bhanwar Lal, D.W.4- Jayant Gehlot, D.W.5-Kushal Raj, D.W.-6 Arjun Singh and D.W.7-Manakchand. 5. After hearing the arguments, the trial court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the defendant has not created any nuisance. The plaintiff failed to prove that the suit premises or any part of the premises has been converted into office of advocate by the defendant despite the fact that the defendant, who was in service at the time when the premises was taken on lease by the defendant, thereafter, the defendant left the service, obtained Sanad and started law practice as an Advocate. 6. The plaintiff preferred appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 6.3.1993 but the appeal of the plaintiff-appellant was also dismissed by the appellate court by judgment and decree dated 14.12.1992 upholding all the findings recorded by the trial court. 7. Substantial question No. 2 framed by this Court while admitting appeal on 18.4.1994 is a ground for eviction available under sub-clause (i) of sub- section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short "the Act of 1950"). 7. Substantial question No. 2 framed by this Court while admitting appeal on 18.4.1994 is a ground for eviction available under sub-clause (i) of sub- section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short "the Act of 1950"). As per the said provision, a tenant is liable to be evicted from the rented premises in case the premises has not been used without reasonable cause for the purpose for which the premises was let out. This is a case of complete non-user of the premises. A bare perusal of the even plaint allegations, it is clear that it was not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant-tenant has not used the premises at all but as per the plaint allegations and as per the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, the plaintiff's case is that the defendant tenant took the premises in question on rent for his own residential use but subsequently, the defendant-tenant obtained the Sanad to practice as a lawyer and started practicing as an Advocate and converted the part of the premises into office of an Advocate. This allegation is a ground popularly known as "change of user" which is a ground in sub-clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act of 1950. Therefore, the substantial question No. 2 does not arise in this appeal at all. 8. Substantial question No. 1 has two grounds in itself. One is creating nuisance and second is change of user by the tenant. Both these grounds are independent but falling in sub-clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act of 1950. The plaintiff-appellant is seeking decree of eviction against the defendant-tenant respondent on these two grounds. Both the courts below decided these two issues against the appellant-landlord. Substantial question of law No. 1, as framed, is substantially a question of fact rather than a question of law but the learned counsel for the appellant tried to submit that both these issues are issues of law inasmuch as that the courts below have drawn wrong conclusion from the evidence available on record, mis- read the evidence and ignored the admission of the defendant, therefore, the finding recorded by the courts below on these two grounds for eviction deserves to be reversed and the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be decreed. 9. 9. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the defendant created nuisance, is proved from the evidence available on record because of the reasons that putting a huge box in the way leading to the garage of the plaintiff, is an admitted fact and by this, the way of the garage of the plaintiff has been obstructed by the defendant-tenant respondent. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the defendant specifically pleaded that the defendant was paying Rs. 10/- per month in addition to the rent for keeping his goods including the box in dispute in the garage. The courts below found that the garage is not included in the tenancy and, therefore, the defendant-tenant had no right to put the big box in the way. Therefore, creating nuisance by putting the box, is proved fact from the evidence available on record. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the defendant put two water tanks in the passage near the garage and using the water tap which is situated in that very way of the garage in a manner causing spreading of water over the floor of the way causing seepage and damage to the walls. Even the plaintiff himself fell down because of the spreading of the water by the defendant-tenant respondent. 10. As stated earlier, all the pleas raised by the learned counsel for the appellant are nothing but challenge to the finding of fact recorded by the two courts below. Even from the arguments, no case of any question of law comes out. Despite above, it will be worthwhile to mention here that the suit premises was let out to the defendant-tenant on 1.5.1977. The suit has been filed on 11.7.1983, about six years after the tenancy. The plaintiff- appellant in his statement, in cross-examination, admitted that the disputed box which is lying in the way of the garage was brought by the respondent- tenant along with all his other household goods when he took the premises on rent. The appellant failed to even plead that when the said box was brought by the defendant-respondent along with all his other goods at the time of start of the tenancy, where he first put his this box in the premises or in the plaintiff's building. The appellant failed to even plead that when the said box was brought by the defendant-respondent along with all his other goods at the time of start of the tenancy, where he first put his this box in the premises or in the plaintiff's building. The plaintiff, in his cross-examination, admitted that the defendant brought the box when he took the premises on rent itself and only about three years ago, in the year 1981, the plaintiff requested the defendant-tenant to remove the box. Therefore, admittedly, the box was with the defendant-tenant from the date when the tenancy was created and which was lying with the defendant-tenant from that time and how it became nuisance subsequently, has not been proved by the plaintiff by any evidence. The courts below further found that it was not possible for the defendant-tenant to take the box to his premises because of the short size of the stairs by which the rented premises can be approached and this fact finds support from the evidence of the plaintiff himself. In these circumstances, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given by the trial Court as well as by the appellate Court for deciding issues. 11. So far as creating nuisance by using the water tap is concerned, it is also a question of fact. The plaintiff himself pleaded that on the request of the defendant, the plaintiff himself installed the water tap near the way where it is situated. It is also pleaded that the defendant, with the help of plastic pipe is taking water from this tap and, in this process, some portion of the floor gets some water spread. Both the courts below, after critical analysis of the evidence of the witnesses, found that there is a water drain near the water tap and in the process of taking water from the tap, if some water spreads here and there, it goes through that water drain and it is not causing any nuisance. The plaintiff himself placed on record photograph (Ex. 1) and that itself belies the plaintiff's story of creating nuisance by the respondent-tenant, in addition to the fact that even if small quantity of water spreads due to taking water from the tap, itself cannot be termed as a nuisance because the spreading of water in small quantity is a natural consequence of taking water from the tap. 1) and that itself belies the plaintiff's story of creating nuisance by the respondent-tenant, in addition to the fact that even if small quantity of water spreads due to taking water from the tap, itself cannot be termed as a nuisance because the spreading of water in small quantity is a natural consequence of taking water from the tap. This tap was installed by the plaintiff himself then he should have taken care of making further provision of not spreading even a small quantity of water by providing some platform etc. But, after permitting the tenant to take water from the tap, unless it is pleaded and proved that the tenant-defendant is deliberately using the water tap to create nuisance, the plaintiff cannot have any grievance out of the natural consequence of using of the water tap. It will be worthwhile to note the pleading of the plaintiff which merely says that because of taking water from the disputed tap through plastic pipe, some water spreads on the floor. Even it is not pleaded that the defendant-tenant is deliberately creating nuisance. The pleading merely narrates the natural consequence of taking water from the tap. Therefore, from the facts of the case and the evidence available on record, it is clear that no case of nuisance has been made out by the plaintiff-appellant and the courts below have rightly decided the issues against the plaintiff-appellant. 12. Much has been said by the learned counsel for the appellant on the issue of "change of user" by the tenant-respondent of the premises in dispute by converting one of the rooms in office of an Advocate. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the courts below and, in particular, the first appellate court, merely refused to pass decree on the ground that the plaintiff failed to prove which of the rooms has been converted into Advocate's office by the defendant-tenant respondent. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, this is an admitted fact that the defendant-respondent was in service when he took the premised on lease and, thereafter, he left the service, joined the Bar, started practicing as an Advocate having cases ranging from the trial Court to the High Court. He put his name plate describing himself as an Advocate on the premises in dispute and he is keeping his files and books in the disputed premises. He put his name plate describing himself as an Advocate on the premises in dispute and he is keeping his files and books in the disputed premises. Therefore, it has been proved by the plaintiff that part of the premises is being used for the office purpose of Advocate by the defendant-tenant respondent. It was for the defendant to prove where he is attending his clients, settled fees and brief his clients, if not in the premises. It is also submitted that the respondent-tenant is practicing as Advocate, is an admitted fact. His son is also Advocate and is practicing with him and there is no other place except one of the rooms of the rented premises where the defendant-tenant can prepare his case and can attend his clients. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, it was for the defendant-tenant to produce his clients to prove that the defendant-tenant is attending them at different place than the premises in dispute. 13. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants are devoid of any force because of the reason that it was for the plaintiff to prove that part of the premises has been converted into the office of an Advocate by the defendant-tenant respondent. The Courts below examined the entire aspect of the matter carefully and found that there are only two rooms which are on the upstairs and the defendant's family is consisting of five members having good quantity of his house holds goods, therefore, it is impossible to think that the defendant can spare any portion of the premises for his office. It will be worthwhile to mention here that even one latrine, bath room and even kitchen are also in one of the rooms. The learned counsel for the appellant could not meet with this reason given by the trial court. Merely having the name plate of Advocate on the premises, wearing black coat and pant, going to the courts and having cases, does not mean that the Advocate has converted any portion of the rented premises for office use, particularly, when circumstances show that practically it is not possible to convert any of the rooms in office of the Advocate. Merely having the name plate of Advocate on the premises, wearing black coat and pant, going to the courts and having cases, does not mean that the Advocate has converted any portion of the rented premises for office use, particularly, when circumstances show that practically it is not possible to convert any of the rooms in office of the Advocate. The plea that after admitting the fact of becoming advocate by the defendant, it was the duty of the defendant to produce his clients and other evidence and should have proved where he is attending his clients and where he prepared the case, is also not a valid argument in peculiar facts of this case. When the facts pleaded by the plaintiff and facts which have come on record like rented premises is having only two rooms, in one room there is kitchen, latrine and bath room, defendant has five family members then preponderance of probabilities also suggests that the defendant may be attending his clients elsewhere but certainly not in the rented premises. Therefore, I do not find any illegality in the reasoning given by the court below on this issue. 14. Next, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgments of this Court delivered in the cases of Bhagwanram v. Thakurji Sampatraj (1989(2) All India Rent Control Journal 451) and LRs of Late Jaswant Mal & Ors. v. Kailash Narayan (2002(1) DNJ (Raj.) 301) . In the case of Bhagwanram (supra), the facts are entirely different. In that case, the tenant trespassed on other portion of the property of the landlord and he constructed water-tank and opened door in the wall intervening shop and 'Sal', whereas here in this case, it is clear from the finding recorded by the courts below that the defendant did not encroach upon any of the portion of the property or building of the plaintiff. It is an admitted case that box in dispute was brought by the defendant-tenant along with all his household goods, when he entered into the premises. It is true that the defendant pleaded that he put this box, cycle and cot in the garage and he was paying Rs. It is an admitted case that box in dispute was brought by the defendant-tenant along with all his household goods, when he entered into the premises. It is true that the defendant pleaded that he put this box, cycle and cot in the garage and he was paying Rs. 10/- extra for using the garage which was not believed by the Court below but at the same time it is not the case of the plaintiff that defendant has encroached upon any of the portion of the plaintiff's other property, nor so has been found by the court below. The defendant-tenant is neither seeking any relief of getting possession of the garage nor he is claiming anything more than what has been permitted by the landlord which is permission to keep the box of the defendant where the box was presently lying. Therefore, the said judgment has no application to the facts of this case. 15. The judgment delivered in the case of Lrs of Late Jaswant Mal & ors. (supra) also has no application to the facts of this case. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant landlord need not to seek decree for eviction for the space which is being used by the defendant-tenant by putting the box and need not to pay the court fee because the space used by the defendant-tenant is for the beneficial enjoyment of the premises, therefore, in case decree is passed then the defendant-tenant respondent will have to vacate all parts which he is occupying in the building of the landlord appellant. This judgment delivered in the case of LRs of late Jaswant Mal (supra) has also no application to the facts of this case. 16. In view of the above reasons, I do not find that the courts below have committed any illegality in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and the appeal. The defendant-tenant has neither created nuisance nor done anything which is inconsistent with the purpose for which he was admitted to tenancy. 17. There is no force in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******