IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.2590 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision:21.04.2011. Harjinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus Chander Kanta ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. N.S.Swaitch, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. This revision petition is directed against the orders passed by the learned Courts below by which eviction petition filed by the landlord on the ground of change of user has been allowed. As per rent note dated 14.04.2005 (Ex.A1), the landlord has let out the demised premises (shop) to the tenant for running a STD/PCO but she also opened a tea-stall and installed a photostat machine. The learned Appellate Authority has found from the photographs Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-3 that a counter has been installed in one portion of the shop for the purpose of preparing and selling tea and besides the business of booking bricks the business of photostat is also going on in the same premises. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that STD/PCO business is still continuing in the same premises, but he did not dispute that the tenant is using the demised premises for the purpose of running a tea-stall, photostat business and is also doing the business of selling bricks in the same demised premises without the permission of the landlord. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find any error in the orders passed by the learned Courts below by which the petitioner/tenant was ordered to vacate the demised premises. Hence, the revision petition is hereby dismissed in limine though without any order as to costs. April 21, 2011 ( Rakesh Kumar Jain ) vinod* Judge