(1) SPECIAL leave granted. (2) THE petitioner is a barber by profession. He is occupying a shop premises measuring 10 ft. x 18 ft. in which he has been carrying on hair cutting saloon. The monthly rent payable in respect of the premises is Rs 17 and it appears to be the standard rent. The landlord brought an action for eviction of the petitioner for not paying rent for six months and also on account of change in use of the premises. It was alleged that the tenant stopped using it as a barber shop and started using it for the pur- pose of only residence. The trial Judge ordered eviction. On appeal, however, the District Judge, Kohlapur set aside the eviction decree. But the High court on a revision agreed with the trial Judge on the question of change of user. It has been held that the tenant has joined the service in State Transport Undertaking as a driver and ceased to carry on his business and used the premises for residence. (3) IT is not in dispute that the tenant joined service as a driver in the Maharashtra State Road transport Corporation but his case, however, was that he was working as a part time barber in his spare time in the morning and evening. This evidence has been supported by DW 2 also who in turn has stated that the tenant has been using the back portion of the premises for the residential purposes during all these years since he has no other premises. (4) WE have given our anxious consideration to the case of the tenant. He is now no longer in the service of the State Transport Corpo- ration. He has retired as a driver. Even during that service there is evi- dence to indicate that he has been using the premises as hair cutting saloon during his spare time. Secondly, it is not correct to state that there is a change of user merely because he has been using a portion for his residence. That has perhaps become compelling necessity due to his poverty. So long as the premises are also utilised for the purpose of car- rying on his profession it cannot he said that there is change of user. (5) WE, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order of eviction. That has perhaps become compelling necessity due to his poverty. So long as the premises are also utilised for the purpose of car- rying on his profession it cannot he said that there is change of user. (5) WE, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the order of eviction. (6) IN the circumstances of the case, however, we make no order as to costs.