above, even these pleas as noted above, could not be proved, that the petitioner was using the suit premises for a continuous period of 6 months prior to institution of the suit. Even assuming that the petitioner had changed the nature of the business, the evidence on record clearly indicates that the petitioner was not using the premises for a continuous period of 6 months prior to institution of the suit and therefore, Section 13(1)(k) was clearly applicable to entitle the respondent for a decree of possession against the petitioner. The object of the said provision is that the tenant should use the premises for the purpose for which the premises were let out and the tenant cannot keep the premises unused for the period stipulated by the said provision, unless there was some reasonable cause. In the present case, the respondent has succeeded to prove that the petitioner was not using the premises continuous for the period of 6 months prior to institution of the suit. Further the petitioner has also not come with a case to furnish some reasonable cause preventing him from such non-user. I am, therefore, not inclined to accept the limited submissions as made on behalf of the petitioner, as the findings recorded by the appellate Judge are based on evidence and on application of the proper principles of law, in partly allowing the appeal and in decreeing the suit against the petitioner, on the ground of non-user of the suit premises.
