Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS revision petition has been filed under Section 15 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by Banwari Lal, tenant, against the order of the Appellate Authority, Chandigarh, dated August 4, 1979.
(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that Iqbal Singh is the owner of shop -cum -flat No. 19, Sector 9 -D, Chandigarh. He gave it on lease to the tenant on the monthly rent of Rs. 300, - -vide rent deed dated November 8, 1963, Exhibit A, 1, wherein one of the conditions was that the lessee would use the shop -portion of the building for general and provision stores and not for any other business. He filed an application for ejectment of the tenant inter -alia on the ground that the latter had changed the user of the shop -portion and had started the business of marble, marble chips, stone etc. The other grounds taken by the landlord do not survive. The application for ejectment was contested by the Respondent who admitted that the shop -portion was being used by him for the aforesaid business. He, however, denied that it was a change of user of the shop -portion. The learned Rent Controller held that there was no change of user by the tenant. The other issues were also decided by him against the landlord. Consequently, he dismissed the application for ejectment. The landlord went up in appeal before the appellate Authority who held that the tenant had changed the user of the shop -portion. Consequently, he accepted the appeal and ordered ejectment of the tenant. He has come up in revision against that order to this Court.
(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the shop -portion of the building was taken by the petitioned for carrying on business of general and provision stores in it and the other portion for residence. He argues that as the building was not solely used for non -residential purposes, therefore, it was to be considered as a residential building. He further argues that in case some other business is started by the Petitioner in the shop -portion the building remains a non -residential building. He urges that in the aforesaid situation, the Appellate Authority could not order ejectment of the Petitioner. He also urges that admittedly the Petitioner could use the shop -portion for general and provision stores. According to him, the word 'general' is wide enough to include the business of stone, marble, marble chips etc.;