Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. Petitioner is aggrieved against the order of ejectment passed by the courts below on the ground that the tenant has changed the user of the building from residential to (sic) for the purpose or using it as a godown and that it has ceased to occupy the premises. 2. The tenant was inducted as a tenant more than 40 years back. However, the respondent landlord purchased the property vide registered sale deed dated 2.7.1979 Ex. A1. Thereafter, the landlord filed ejectment petition which was dismissed on 25.8.1981. However, soon thereafter, the landlord filed another ejectment petition inter-alia, on the ground that the tenant has changed the user of the premises from that of residential to business and the building is lying closed for more than the last four months and that the tenant is keeping his residence at Delhi. Said ejectment petition was allowed by the learned Rent Controller. The findings recorded by the Rent Controller were affirmed in appeal by the appellate authority. 3. The ground of change of user was proved against the petitioner on the basis of the finding recorded in the order dated 25.8.1981 Ex. A1 passed in the previous ejectment petition wherein it was held that the demised premises is residential building. It has been admitted by RW1, Noor Mohammed, Mukhtiar-e-am of the petitioner firm and RW2 Ram Pal, Munshi to the effect that the building is being used as a godown. In view of the said admission of the witnesses produced by the petitioner firm the aforesaid finding that the tenant has changed the user of the premises recorded by the Rent Controller, were affirmed in appeal. There is no illegality or irregularity in the finding thus recorded. 4. Regarding the eviction on the ground that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises, the courts below have relied upon document Ex. R3, stock register. In the said register, it has also been admitted that no business was transacted after 10.6.1981. There is no evidence that any business was transacted after 10.6.1981. The head office of the firm is at Delhi. The petitioner could produce only some correspondence and ledger after the said period transacted from Delhi Office. The evidence of RW1 and RW2 was considered by the appellate authority. It was stated by them that the business of the firm is seasonal one. The head office of the firm is at Delhi. The petitioner could produce only some correspondence and ledger after the said period transacted from Delhi Office. The evidence of RW1 and RW2 was considered by the appellate authority. It was stated by them that the business of the firm is seasonal one. Still further RW2, Ram Pal Munshi has stated that he visited Barnala only 4 or 5 years back. Both of them are not residents of Barnala and have not visited the premises in dispute in connection with the affairs of the tenant firm. As a matter of fact, none of the partners of petitioner appeared as witness. On the other hand AW4 Vijay Kumar and the landlord AW5 Yash Pal Singh have deposed that the building is lying closed for more than 1-1/2 years. These findings are based upon the evidence on record. 5. There is no material illegality or irregularity warranting interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed. However, two months time is granted to the petitioner tenant to vacate the premises.