J.V.Gupta, J.

1. This is tenants petition against whom eviction order has been passed before the authorities below.

2. The shop in dispute was let out to Sohan Lal Bhatia, who was sole proprietor of Bhatia Cane Works on a monthly rent of Rs. 294/- in the year 1975. The application was filed on 14.8.1985 inter alia on the ground that there was a change of user. The premises were let out only for doing cane business whereas now the tenant was doing hardware business therein; secondly on the ground that there was impairment of the value and utility of the building by the tenant. The petition was contested controverting all the allegations. The learned Rent Controller found that there was a change of user as premises were let out for running cane business whereas at present the tenant was using the premises for storing hard-ware goods. It was further found that the tenant had impaired the value and utility of the premises by affixing the racks by creating groove in the walls and also by constructing a chhajja without the consent of the landlord. Consequently, eviction order was passed. In appeal, the learned Appellate Authority affirmed the finding of the Rent Controller on the ground of change of user and thus maintained the eviction order. Dissatisfied with the same, the tenant has filed this petition in this Court.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the tenant was still running the cane business in the demised premises. Alongwith the same, he is also doing business in hardware. Thus argued the learned counsel, in this situation it cannot be held that there was any change of user.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the relevant evidence, I do not find any merit in this contention. In this case, the tenant has appeared in the witness-box as R. W. 3 and admitted in cross-examination that since 1980 he has started business in hardware. Prior to that he was doing cane business. He has categorically stated that it is correct that the shop was let out to him for cane work only. As a matter of fact, according to the case set out by the tenant, the change in use was the consent of the landlord for which he was unable to lead any cogent evidence. Thus on the basis of the admission made by the tenant himself, both the authorities below have found that there was change of user. There is nothing in the evidence on the record that the tenant was still doing cane business and in addition thereto has started doing business in hardware as well, nor it was the case set up by him. In these circumstances, I do not find any impropriety or illegality in the concurrent findings of the two authorities below as to be interfered with in this revision. Consequently, the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the tenant is allowed three months time to vacate the premises provided all arrears of rent, if any, are deposited with the Rent Controller within one month with a further undertaking in writing that after the expiry of the said period, vacant possession will be handed over to the landlord and the rent for the said period will be paid in advance by the 10th of every month.