Mehar Singh, J.

1. The facts are not in dispute. The rent note was executed on August 13, 1964, and under it the applicant-firm Himalayan Traders rented the demised premises for its own residence. The fact is that no partner of the applicant-firm has ever resided in those premises. Its employees or others visiting it for business purposes have been residing there. One room of the premises has been used as a godown.

2. The Rent Controller found that the demised premises were used by the tenant-firm for the purpose for which the same were taken on rent, thus negativing the claim of the landlord that it had used it for a purpose other than that for which it was leased within section 13(2) (ii) (b) of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (East Punjab Act 3 of 1919). On appeal the Appellate Authority has taken a contrary view and it has come to the conclusion that the landlord is entitled to eject the tenant-firm under the very provisions on two grounds: (a) that part of the demised premises, that is to say, one room, has been used as a godown, a purpose for which the demised premises were not let, and (b) that, although the demised premises have been used for residential purpose, a purpose for which the same were let, but not for the residence of the persons for whom the lease of the same was obtained, that is to say, not for the residence of the partners of the tenant-firm, but for the residence of its servants and other visitors. It is on this ground that the Appellate Authority reversed the order of the Rent Controller and has ordered the ejectment of the tenant-firm from the demised premises.

3. In this revision application by the tenant-firm because of the decisions in Inder Singh v. Kalu Ram Harijan I L R (1965) 1 P&H. 121, and Rameshwar Das v. Rikhi Parkash I. L.R. (1965) P&H. 177, the learned counsel for the landlord has not been able to support the conclusion of the Appellate Authority that because one room of the demised premises has been used for godown, therefore, that is a user of the demised premises for purpose other than that for which the same were let. The two cases are exactly in point and decide otherwise. According to section 13(2) (ii) of the Act-

A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Controller for a direction in that behalf. If the Controller, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the applicant is satisfied-(ii) that the tenant has after the commencement of this Act without the written consent of the landlord - (a) transferred his right under the lease or sublet the entire building or rented land or any portion thereof; or (b) used the building or rented land for a purpose oilier than for which it was leased,-the Controller may make an order directing the tenant to out the landlord in possession of the building or rented land.

It is clear that if it was the intention of the Legislature that where a small part of the demised premises is not used for the purpose for which it has been let and that was to be the round of ejectment, it would have used the same phraseology as in section 13(2) (ii) (a) and then it would have used in section 13(2) (ii) (b) also the words any portion thereof. This it has not done. What it has done is that it has said that when the building is used for a purpose other than that for which it was leased and therefore unless the part so used can itself be described as a building, the building to which this part of the clause refers must be taken as a whole. So that user of one room as the godown does not come under section 13(2) (ii) (b) of the Act.

4. The only aspect of the matter that is preyed by the learned counsel for the landlord is that according to the rent note the demised premises were let to the tenant-firm for its own residence, which means in substance for the residence of its partners. The fact has been that the same has been used for the residence of its employees and some persons visiting it in connection with its business. At the same time, the fact remains that the premises have been used for the purpose for which the same were leased, that is to say, they were leased for residential purpose and have been used for residential purpose. The ground in section 13(2) (ii) (b) cannot be stretched to this that in a case like the present partners must themselves reside in the premises and nobody connected with their firm can do so and if that happens it will be not a user for purposes for which the demised premises were leased. This is not correct. The demised premises were leased for residential purpose and the same have been used for this purpose. So the approach of the Rent Controller was the correct approach.

5. In consequence, this revision application succeeds and the order of the Appellate Authority is reversed affirming the order of the Rent Controller with the consequence that the application of the landlord for ejectment of the tenant-firm is dismissed. There is no order in regard to costs of this revision application.