, J.

1. The respondent/ landlady sought eviction of the petitioner/tenant under Sec.13 of Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 on the ground that the demised premises were required by the landlady for setting up office and library for her son who is studying in law; that the petitioner has changed the user of the shop and has started residing with his family on its upper portion; that he has impaired its value and utility and made material alterations without her consent. The Rent Cont- roller negatived the plea of the landlady and rejected her application. On appeal the only ground which prevailed with the Appellate Authority was that the tenant has used part of the demised premises for the purpose of godown for which the same were not let out as mentioned in the rent note It found that since the premises have been used as godown it amounts to change in user and ordered evict on of the tenant The tenant has come up in revision petition against the order of the Appellate Authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner did not challenge the finding of the Appellate Authority that the demised premises have been used for purposes other than that for which