JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. 1. Landlord Ved Prakash Sharma, petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as the landlord), is aggrieved of order dated 07.08.2006 passed by the Appellate Authority (III) Shimla, in Rent Appeal No. 25-S/14 of 05/04, titled as Sh. Madan Mohan Singh vs. Sh. Ved Prakash Sharma, whereby order of ejectment from the suit premises passed by the Rent Controller, Shimla, H.P. in Case No. 48/2 of 1999, titled as Sh. Ved Prakash Sharma vs. Sh. Madan Mohan Singh, on 20.09.2004, against tenant Madan Mohan Singh (hereinafter referred to as the tenant) stands reversed. 2. Landlord filed a petition, under the provisions of Section 14 of H.P. Urban Rent Control Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), seeking ejectment of premises identified as House No. 423, Shiv Puri, Shimla. The grounds for ejectment being change of user from residential to commercial (running a printing press); subletting and arrears of rent w.e.f. 01.03.1991. 3. Opposing the petition, tenant took specific stand of denial of having sublet the premises to Harjinder Singh Manku or being in arrears of rent. With respect to change of user, though admitting the premises to be residential in nature, pleaded creation of two tenancies one for residence comprising of two rooms, kitchen, latrine-cum-bathroom and another with respect to a dhara/shed let out for running a workshop. 4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, Rent Controller framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent as alleged? OPP. 2. Whether the respondent, without written consent of the landlord, has used the premises for the purpose of other then for which it were let out? OPP. 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? OPR. 4. Whether the petition is not filed and signed by a competent person? OPR. 5. Whether the petitioner is estopped by his act and conduct? OPR. 6. Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties? OPR. 7. Whether the Dhara/shed was separately given on rent to the respondent as alleged? OPR. 7A. Whether the respondent has subletted the premises in question without the written consent of the petitioner as alleged? OPP. 8. Relief. 5. OPR. 6. Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties? OPR. 7. Whether the Dhara/shed was separately given on rent to the respondent as alleged? OPR. 7A. Whether the respondent has subletted the premises in question without the written consent of the petitioner as alleged? OPP. 8. Relief. 5. Appreciating the evidence, so led by the parties and the material so placed on record, vide order dated 20.09.2004, Rent Controller answered the issues in favour of the petitioner and allowed the petition in the following terms:- "In the light of my findings on the foregoing issues, the petition succeeds on the ground that the respondent is in arrears of rent of the tenanted premises March, 1991 till the date of institution of the petition and the respondent without any written consent of the petitioner or any other landlord has used the premises for the purposes other than it were let out, the premises was let out, but the respondent used it for running a printing press and also a small shop of goods of daily needs. Further the respondent without the consent of the petitioner either sub-let or in any other manner transferred his right under the lease in respect of the part of the premises in favour of Sh.Harjinder Singh Manku. The respondent is directed to put the petitioner in vacant possession of the premises i.e. three rooms, a kitchen, latrine-cum-bathroom and a small shed/dhara, situated at House No. 423, Shiv Puri, near Himland Hotel, Shimla-1, H.P. within a period of two months to be reckoned from today. However, the eviction of the respondent on the ground of arrears of rent shall not be carried out in case the respondent pay arrears of rent within a period of 30 days with statutory interest at the rate of 9% P.A. and cost of the petition which is quantified at L 500/- to petitioner. Memo of cost be prepared accordingly. The file after due complete be consigned to the record room." 6. In an appeal so filed by the tenant, Appellate Authority partly reversed findings on the ground of change of user. 7. In the present petition, respondent was served and despite repeated adjournments, none has chosen to come forward and contest the same. Matter was repeatedly adjourned for his presence on 08.10.2014, 13.10.2014 and 15.10.2014. 8. In an appeal so filed by the tenant, Appellate Authority partly reversed findings on the ground of change of user. 7. In the present petition, respondent was served and despite repeated adjournments, none has chosen to come forward and contest the same. Matter was repeatedly adjourned for his presence on 08.10.2014, 13.10.2014 and 15.10.2014. 8. Section 14 of the Act provides various grounds for ejectment of a tenant. The relevant applicable provision of Section 14(2)(ii)(b), with which one has to deal, in the instant case, reads as under:- "(b) used the building or rented land for a purpose other than that for which it was leased:" 9. The Appellate Authority, as is evident from para-13 of the impugned order reversed findings rendered by the Rent Controller, only on the basis of alleged admission made by the landlord in para-7 of the rejoinder so filed by him. The approach adopted by the Authority, to say the least is perverse and legally unsustainable. Reliance on an averment made in one paragraph alone cannot be a ground to non-suit a party, specifically when rights stood adjudicated by the Authority below. Admission, in law, has to be specific and unequivocal and it cannot be by way of an inference. When issue No. 7 was answered against the tenant, the Authority was duty bound to have gone into the question of creation and existence of two tenancies, which it failed to do so. Right from the very beginning landlord pleaded and also proved existence of one tenancy with respect to a built up structure and a shed both of which were let out at same time, as part of one tenancy and that too only for residential purposes. Without having dealt with the issue of two tenancies, Appellate Authority, based on the averments made in para-7 of the rejoinder could not have thus proceeded to set aside the otherwise well reasoned findings returned by the Rent Controller. In paras 4, 8 and 18 of the petition, landlord categorically averred that premises being residential were let out for such purpose. In response, tenant admitted that premises were residential in nature, but tried to explain that there were two tenancies one for residence for the built up structure and another one commercial for the shed/dhara. In paras 4, 8 and 18 of the petition, landlord categorically averred that premises being residential were let out for such purpose. In response, tenant admitted that premises were residential in nature, but tried to explain that there were two tenancies one for residence for the built up structure and another one commercial for the shed/dhara. In rejoinder, landlord reiterated averments made in the petition and only clarified that father of the respondent used to "occupy his goods in a temporary shed" which was away from the premises in question. Goods impliedly would not mean goods falling within the definition of Sale of Goods Act or goods meant for commercial purpose in the term used in commercial parlance. Goods can also be household goods which may not be kept inside the room but in a shed on account of non user. At no point in time, did the landlord categorically admit creation of tenancy for any purpose other than residence. Even otherwise, if the original tenant had been storing some goods in the shed, that fact itself not, impliedly, be inferred as consent of the landlord with regard to the change of use of the tenanted premises. 10. Tenant (RW-1), also through his witnesses Anil Kumar (RW-2) and Vijay Kumar (RW-3) could not establish creation of tenancy for commercial purpose. It has come on record through the testimony of Ram Singh (PW.8) that electric connection installed in the premises is domestic. Even other witnesses of the landlord namely M.R. Dhiman (PW-5), Mohan Thakur (PW-6) and Smt. Shashi Thakur (PW-7) have proved the premises to be situated in a residential area. On the other hand, tenant has failed to place on record the rent note. In fact, receipts (Ex.R-1 to R-24) of rent for the period of 1977 onwards do not establish either creation or user of premises for non residential purpose. Significantly tenant did not even respond to notice dated 28.02.1997 sent through registered A.D. (Ex.R-31 and R-32) calling upon him to desist from changing the use of premises on the other hand. Landlord has placed on record order dated 01.04.1999 (Ex.PW.4/A) issued by the District Magistrate, Shimla, which reads as under:- "Order Whereas it has been made known to me by Shri V.P. Sharma son of 1/Sh. Landlord has placed on record order dated 01.04.1999 (Ex.PW.4/A) issued by the District Magistrate, Shimla, which reads as under:- "Order Whereas it has been made known to me by Shri V.P. Sharma son of 1/Sh. Karta Ram Sharma R/o DG-832, Sarojini Nagar, New Delhi that an illegal and unauthorized Printing Press is functioning in residential area i.e. house No. 423, Shiv Puri, Shimla by one Shri Madan Mohan Singh S/o Shri Kishan Singh without any approval of the Govt. as required under the (THE) Press and Registration of Books Act, 1967; And whereas an enquiry into the matter was got conducted through the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shimla (U) and Superintendent of Police, Shimla who had reported that an illegal Printing Press is being functioning in residential area of Shiv Puri by Shri Mdan Mohan Singh. Now therefore, as per provisions of the (THE) Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 the functioning of said press is illegal an unauthorized. Now, I, Ram Suhag Singh, IAS, District Magistrate, Shimla District, hereby order the closure of the functioning of the said Press immediately. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shimla, (U) will ensure the compliance of this order within two days. If required he may obtain the assistance of the police. Sd/- District Magistrate, Shimla" 11. The Municipal Authority has taken action against the landlord for using the premises for non residential purpose. 12. Thus, entire evidence on record clearly establishes that the premises were let out for residential purposes and user thereof stands changed by the tenant as undisputedly printing press stands installed in the premises. 13. Hence for all the aforesaid reasons, present petition needs to be allowed. Findings returned by the Appellate Authority in para-13 of the order dated 07.08.2006 are reversed, quashed and set aside, whereas, the findings returned by the Rent Controller vide order dated 20.09.2004, on all counts, are affirmed. 14. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.