JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. An eviction suit has been filed on the ground of default in payment of rent. The suit property as per own case of the landlord is a residential accommodation comprising of four rooms common Latrine/Bathroom, Balcony and a passage situated at the first floor of House no. 31/32, Beldari Mohalla, Kanpur Nagar. It is stated by the landlord in the notice dated 04.12.2010 that the defendant is tenant of the residential premises at the rent of Rs.200/- per month. There is one more accommodation which is in possession of the defendant namely one Godown at the ground floor of the above noted premises. 3. In paragraph no.2 of the notice dated 04.12.2010, it is categorically stated that the defendant is tenant of a Godown apart from the residential accommodation, the rent of which is Rs. 65/- per month besides water tax and sewer tax at the rate of Rs.11/- per month. 4. Thus the nature of tenancy and the extent of tenement has clearly been narrated by the landlord in the notice of determination of tenancy. After the notice was served, the eviction suit was filed which was registered as SCC suit no.11 of 2011. Five issues were framed, relevant issue no.2 and 3 are as under;- ^^2- D;k fdjk,nkj }kjk Hkou Loeh dks fdjk;k vnk djus esa O;fDrdze fd;k gSA 3- D;k izfroknh /kkjk 20(4) ;w0ih0 ,DV 13 lu~ 1972 ds izko/kku dk ykHk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA** 5. Finding on issue no. 2 is that the notice demanding rent was served upon the petitioner. The defendant though contended that he had tendered rent through a money order within the period given in the notice which was refused but he could not prove this fact. The deposits made by him under section 30 of U.P. Act no.13 of 1972 after service of notice, therefore, were not found valid. This finding of fact recorded by the Trial Court has been affirmed by the Revisional Court and cannot be interfered by this Court for the reason that the refusal by the landlord could not be proved by the tenant. 6. This finding of fact recorded by the Trial Court has been affirmed by the Revisional Court and cannot be interfered by this Court for the reason that the refusal by the landlord could not be proved by the tenant. 6. On issue no.3, on the question of grant of benefit under Section 20(4) of the Act, it was held that though the tenant has deposited arrears of rent in the present suit, but he was not found entitled to the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act in view of proviso to Sub Section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. 7. The said Proviso categorically provides that in case, the tenant or any member of whose family has built or acquire in a vacant state any "residential building" in the same city, municipality, notified area or town area the Sub Section (4) of Section 20 of the Act would not apply. 8. To challenge this finding, categorical submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Proviso to Sub Section (4) of Section 20 of the Act has no application in so far as the Godown is concerned. The tenancy of residential accommodation and Godown are separate as rent has been assigned separately for both the tenements. This fact is admitted to the landlord in the notice dated 04.12.2010. The Godown cannot be included in the "residential accommodation" as contemplated under the Proviso to Sub section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. 9. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court in Har Swarup Nigam Versus District Judge, Allahabad and others and the judgment of Apex Court in Goa Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Noor Mohd. Sheikh Mussa to submit that the Godown cannot be included in the "residential accommodation" rather it is a non residential or commercial accommodation. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that in any case, the benefit of Section 20(4) of the Act cannot be extended to the residential accommodation which compromises of four rooms and amenities situated at the first floor of the House in question. 11. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner to challenge the findings on issue no.3 recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Revisional Court finds force. The word 'Godown' though not defined in the Act however, cannot denote the residential accommodation. 11. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner to challenge the findings on issue no.3 recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Revisional Court finds force. The word 'Godown' though not defined in the Act however, cannot denote the residential accommodation. The view taken by this Court is fortified from the report of the Apex Court in Goa Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. v. Noor Mohd. Sheikh Mussa. Relevant paragraph nos.19 to 21 of the judgment are quoted as under;- 19. "In Aiyer's law Lexicon the word "godown is defined as a 'store' a warehouse. Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary,' Vol. 1. Second Edition, defines the word 'godown' to mean 'in India, China, Japan etc. a warehouse.' In the Concise Oxford Dictionary, Fourth Edition, the meaning of this word is given as 'warehouse in part of Asia, esp. India.' 20. 'Warehouse' has been defined in Law Lexicon of British India, 1940 Edition, as a warehouse is, properly speaking a building used for the purpose of storing goods imported at a reasonable rent." According to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, third edition, a warehouse, in common parlance, certainly means a place where are not immediately wanted for sale.' In Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary, Volume II second edition, it means "a building where wares or goods are stored, as before being distributed to retailers, a storehouse." 21. In Des Raj v. Sha, Lal, AIR 1980 P&H 229 , the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that where a premises is let out to the tenant as a shop and it is silent as regards the purpose for which it is let and it is used by the tenant exclusively as godown then the tenant can be said to have changed the use of the premises and liable to be evicted in terms of the provisions of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949. It was observed: "This hypothetical discussion is meant to emphasis that where a demised 'building' is identified merely as 'shop' although various kinds of trade could be carried on therein, but if the same demised 'building' came to be used later on exclusively as 'residential building,' then that would tantamount to the change of user. It was observed: "This hypothetical discussion is meant to emphasis that where a demised 'building' is identified merely as 'shop' although various kinds of trade could be carried on therein, but if the same demised 'building' came to be used later on exclusively as 'residential building,' then that would tantamount to the change of user. Similarly, if such a demise 'building' was put to use exclusively as a 'godown' (for the moment assuming that the expression 'godown' connotes a 'building' that is used for the purposes of only stocking provisions therein), then that would tantamount to the change of user. The reason being that when the demised 'building' is used as a 'shop,' it is being put to constant use by the lessee which, by implication, ensures its proper upkeep like timely repair, timely white-washing etc., but when a building is used as a 'godown,' which is merely used for dumping goods therein, such an unkeep may neither be possible nor, by implication, envisaged as such. A 'godown' remains mostly closed, while a 'shop' remains mostly open. The premises used as a 'godown' are bound to deteriorate and a landlord, if had been informed at the time of entering into the lease transaction that the lessee intended to use the demised premises described as 'shop' he might not have agreed to enter into the said lease transaction. Hence, when the demised premises are used for a purpose to which having regard to its description as 'shop,' 'house' etc., the landlord may not have intended, had the said different purpose, which the lessee had in mind, been made known by the lessee to him, then the landlord may not have agreed to lease the said building for that purpose (seen in this connection Telu Ram v. Om Parkash Garg, 1971 (73) Pun LR 1). Hence putting to use the demised premises to a purpose, which the given description or identification of the demised building in the rent note did not warrant, would tantamount to the change of user." 12. The Godown being a place of business cannot be included in the words "residential accommodation" and the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act, therefore, cannot be denied to the petitioner by invoking Proviso to Sub Section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. The Godown being a place of business cannot be included in the words "residential accommodation" and the benefit of Section 20 (4) of the Act, therefore, cannot be denied to the petitioner by invoking Proviso to Sub Section (4) of Section 20 of the Act. The Courts below have committed a manifest error of law in recording the finding on issue no.3 with respect to the Godown at the ground floor of the premises in question. 13. However, so far as the finding relating to the residential accommodation at the first floor of the House no.31/32, Ghumni Mohal, Kanpur (Beldari Mohal) Kanpur Nagar is concerned, it does not require any interference. 14. The matter is,therefore, remitted back on the limited issue of recording a fresh finding on the question of grant of benefit of Section 20 of Sub Section (4) of the Act to the petitioner with reference to the "Godown" which exists at the ground floor of the above referred premises. 15. The Judge Small Causes Court shall return its finding within a period of three months after giving due opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 16. With the above directions, this petition is allowed. Petition allowed.