Manoj Misra,J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and Sri Abu Bakht holding brief of Sri M.K. Jain for the plaintiff-respondents. 2. The instant revision application has been filed against a judgment and decree dated 05.10.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.10, Moradabad in J.S.C.C. Suit No. 03 of 2003 by which the suit of the plaintiff-respondents has been decreed and the defendant-revisionist has been directed to vacate the shop in question, within two months, and deliver its vacant possession to the plaintiff-respondents as also to pay arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 27.35 from 01.01.2004 till delivery of possession of the property in question to the plaintiff. 3. A perusal of the record reveals that J.S.C.C. Suit No. 03 of 2003 was instituted by the plaintiff-respondents on ground that the building in dispute was not covered by U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972; that the defendant-revisionist has changed the user of the shop in dispute, inasmuch as, the same was let out for a grocery shop which was converted into a rest house without the written permission of the landlord; and that the defendant-revisionist committed default in payment of the rent and, as such, was liable to be evicted. As many as seven issues were framed by the court below on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. 4. As regards the issue whether U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was applicable or not, the court below took the view that as the building in toto fetched a rent exceeding Rs. 2,000/- per month, it was out of the purview of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 notwithstanding that the rent of the accommodation in the tenancy of the defendant-revisionist fetched a rent lower than Rs. 2,000/-. With regards to the issue as to whether the defendant had changed the user of the shop in dispute, a finding was returned that the shop in dispute was let out by a written rent deed for grocery shop and it was clearly mentioned therein that the tenant will not use it for any other purpose than a grocery shop but, despite the aforesaid clause, without the written permission of the plaintiff, the defendant had converted the use of grocery shop to a rest house, which was not permissible. 5. 5. The court below also found that the defendant-tenant had not paid/deposited the water-tax, which becomes payable as a rent under Section 7 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, therefore, there was a default and for which he was liable to be evicted. The court also found that the defendant-revisionist had failed to deposit the entire amount due and payable to the landlord on the first date of hearing and, as such, was not entitled to the benefit of sub-section (4) of section 20 of the said Act. Accordingly, after determining the aforesaid issues against the defendant-revisionist, the court below decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondents. 6. Assailing the judgment and decree of the court below, the learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist submitted that the finding returned by the court below with regards to applicability of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is erroneous in law, inasmuch as, the applicability of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 is to be adjudged on the basis of the rent payable for the tenancy of the accommodation in question and not with regards to the rent payable for the entire building of which the accommodation in question may be a part. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist placed reliance on a decision in the case of Ajay Kumar Jaiswal v. Smt. Shanti Singh : LAWS (All) 1998-4-112 : 1998 (2) ARC 14 , wherein this court took the view that the applicability of the Act is to be considered with respect to the rent payable for the accommodation in question and not with respect to the rent payable for the entire building of which the accommodation in question may be a part. As regards the finding with regards to the change of user, the learned counsel for the defendant-revisionist submitted that although there has been a change of user but the change had been since long and no objection was raised by the landlord, therefore, the ground of change of user was not available to the landlord. With regards to the question of default, the learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the water-tax cannot be treated as part of the rent for the purposes of eviction under clause (a) to sub-Section (2) of Section 20 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 7. With regards to the question of default, the learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the water-tax cannot be treated as part of the rent for the purposes of eviction under clause (a) to sub-Section (2) of Section 20 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 7. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents submitted that even if the finding with regards to the applicability of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 may be erroneous, but still it would not make any difference in the result of the suit as the court below has decreed the suit on ground of default as also change of user. It has been submitted that the finding with regards to the change of user and with regards to default is a finding based on appreciation of evidence on record and is not vitiated in any manner. It has been submitted that under clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the U.P.Act No. 13 of 1972, a tenant is liable for eviction if, without the written consent of the landlord, he has used the premises in question for a purpose other than the purpose for which he was admitted to the tenancy of the building. It has further been submitted that under Section 7 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, it is specifically provided that unless, otherwise, agreed in writing, the tenant is liable to pay to the landlord, in addition to and as part of the rent, water-tax. It has been submitted that the court below has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of New Bank of India v. Sangat Singh Panwar : 2007 (4) AWC, 4064 : 2005 (2) ARC 625, wherein it was held that water-tax is part of rent and if, water-tax is not paid, tenant is liable to eviction. 8. It has been submitted that the court below has relied on a decision of this Court in the case of New Bank of India v. Sangat Singh Panwar : 2007 (4) AWC, 4064 : 2005 (2) ARC 625, wherein it was held that water-tax is part of rent and if, water-tax is not paid, tenant is liable to eviction. 8. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this court finds that no doubt the finding returned by the court below on the applicability of U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 may not be correct in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Jaiswal v. Shanti Singh : LAWS (All)-1998-4-112 : 1998 (2) ARC 14 but, in any view of the matter, the finding returned with regards to the change of user as also with regards to default, cannot be faulted. It is not disputed that under a written rent-deed, the defendant-revisionist had agreed that he will not use the premises in question for any purpose other than a grocery shop. Admittedly, without any written permission of the plaintiff, there was a conversion of use of grocery shop to a rest house. In such circumstances, the defendant was liable for eviction under clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. 9. The submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist that as the landlord had not raised any objection for long with regards to the change of user of the tenanted accommodation, therefore, he was estopped, cannot be accepted, inasmuch as to seek protection under the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972, the tenant must not, on his own, violate its provisions. Therefore, there is no question of applicability of the principle of estoppel against the landlord in this regard. No doubt, the Rent Control Legislation is a beneficial piece of legislation, but in order to avail its benefit the tenant must abide by its provisions. 10. Therefore, there is no question of applicability of the principle of estoppel against the landlord in this regard. No doubt, the Rent Control Legislation is a beneficial piece of legislation, but in order to avail its benefit the tenant must abide by its provisions. 10. As regards the finding returned by the court below on the question of default, suffice it to say that under Section 7 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 water tax is a part of rent, therefore, the view taken by the court below, cannot be faulted, particularly, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of New Bank of India (supra). For the reasons recorded above, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the decree passed by the court below. The revision is dismissed. __________________