H.S.BEDI,J - (1.) THE present revision petition is directed against the order of the Appellate Authority under the Rent Act whereby the order of the Rent Controller dated 5.5.1988 dismissing the petition for ejectment of the tenant, has been set aside and the eviction of the tenant ordered. The brief facts of the case are as under : Sher Singh, present respondent and landlord of the demised premises, which is said to be a shop situated in Farwahi Bazar, Barnala, had let the same out to Ram Gopal tenant, on rent at the rate of Rs. 3200/- per annum besides house-tax for a period of one year starting from 15th May, 1977. As the tenant remained in arrears of rent and was a source of nuisance to the landlord and the landlord needed the demised premises for his own use and occupation, the present application under section 13 of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for short the 'Act') was filed for the eviction of the tenant. The arrears of rent as claimed in the petition were tendered before the Rent Controller on the very first date along with interest and costs as assessed, and this tender was accepted by the landlord under protest. In the reply to the petition, the tenant, however, while admitting the relationship inter se the parties, disputed the liability to pay the house-tax or that he was a source of nuisance or that the premises were required by the landlord for his own use and occupation or that he had changed the user of the premises in dispute. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Rent Controller; "1. Whether the respondent is in arrears of rent ? OPA 2. Whether the respondent is source of nuisance to the petitioner and the neighbourers ? OPA 3. Whether the petitioner bonafide requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation ? OPA 4. Whether the petitioner does not possess any other premises in the urban area of Barnala ? OPA 5. Whether the petitioner has not vacated any premises in the area of Barnala after the commencement of the Act ? OPA 6. Whether the respondent has changed the user of the demised premises by converting the same to commercial use ? OPA. Relief". The Rent Controller decided issue No.5 in favour of the landlord and the other issues against him and consequently dismissed the application. In appeal, the aforesaid finding has been reversed on issue Nos.3 and 4 with result the ejectment of the tenant has been ordered. It has been argued by Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the finding against the petitioner could not be so recorded in the light of the fact that the demised premises was, in fact, situated in the commercial area of Farwahi Bazar, Barnala and the letting out of the disputed premises which was in fact a part of a residential building, would not be permissible without the permission of the Rent Controller under Section 11 of the Act and, as such, the eviction on the ground of personal necessity could not be ordered. He has also relied on a decision of this Court reported in Nirmal Singh v. Kuldip Raj, 1992(2) RLR 483: 1992(2) RLR 448 to the effect that the change of user could not be made without the permission of the Rent Controller as in the above cited case the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Dev Brat Sharma v. Dr. Jagjit Mehta, 1990(2) RCJ 431 was also cited. In view of this admitted position that the premises in dispute was in a commercial area the mere fact that it was a part of the residential building, would not make any difference. For the reasons recorded above, the present petition is allowed; the order of the Appellate Authority is set aside and the ejectment application is dismissed. Petition allowed.;