Judgment Hemant Gupta, J. 1. The tenant is aggrieved against the order of eviction passed by the learned Appellate Authority on the ground that the petitioner has changed the user of the demised premises. 2. It is the case of landlord that the demised premises were let out vide rent note dated 9.1.1956 for residential purposes but the tenant has started using the same for tethering the buffaloes and, therefore, he has changed the user of the premises. The eviction was also sought on the ground that the tenant is in arrears of rent and that the value of the premises have been impaired. The learned Appellate Authority relying upon rent note dated 9.1.1956, Exhibit A-1, held that the premises were let out for residential purposes and that the user of the premises for tethering cattle without written consent of the landlord amounts to violation of the provisions of Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973. The argument that the landlord is estopped to seek ejectment after user of the premises as diary did not find favour with the learned Appellate Authority. The learned Appellate Authority relied upon the judgments of this Court reported as Des Raj v. Sham Lal 1980(2) R.L.R. 243 and Thakur Dass and Anr. v. Mithan Lal 1977 R.C.R. 374. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the learned Rent Controller has returned a finding that the rent note Exhibit A-1 is not a genuine document and, therefore, the learned Appellate Authority could not rely upon the said rent rote without reversing the said finding specifically. My attention was drawn to the last line in rent note Exhibit A-1 wherein it was stipulated that the tenant shall not use the premises for tethering the cattle. It was argued that since in the rent note itself it is written that the premises shall be used for residential purposes only, the last line, in fact, in interpolation of the document which makes no coherent reading. 4. To prove the rent note Exhibit A-1, the landlord has examined stamp vendor Ra-jeshwar Parshad who has appeared as AW-2. The landlord has also examined Budh Ram. one of the attesting witnesses, as AW-3. 5. The learned Appellate Authority found the rent note duly proved on the basis of statement of these two witnesses. 4. To prove the rent note Exhibit A-1, the landlord has examined stamp vendor Ra-jeshwar Parshad who has appeared as AW-2. The landlord has also examined Budh Ram. one of the attesting witnesses, as AW-3. 5. The learned Appellate Authority found the rent note duly proved on the basis of statement of these two witnesses. As a matter of fact, even learned Rent Controller has not returned any finding about the execution of the rent note but found the said document in-genuine only on the basis of last line of the said rent note wherein it is mentioned that the respondent shall not use the premises for tethering cattle. The said line by itself is no ground to hold the rent note as in genuine document. I have gone through the original document Exhibit A-1. Though the same is added at the end but the spacing, the ink and the manner in which it has been written does not suggest that the last line has been written at any time subsequent to the execution of the main document. Therefore, I am unable to accept the argument raised by learned Counsel for the tenant that rent note Exhibit A-1 is not a genuine document. Once it is proved that the premises were let out for residential purposes, the petitioner is liable to be evicted as it is not disputed by the petitioner that he is tethering cattle in the premises and using as a dairy. The provision of Section 13(2)(ii)(b) of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 provide that tenant is not liable to be evicted if such change of user is with the written consent of the landlord. Mere long user will not amount to written consent. That is the view of this Court in the judgments reported as Dhanpati and Ors. v. Satish Kumar (1988-1)93 P.L.R. 77 and Yogdheyan Singh and Ors. v. Devki Nandan and Ors. 1990(2) Revenue Law Reporter 454. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any patent illegality or material irregularity in the finding recorded by the learned Appellate Authority which may warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted two months time to vacate the demised premises.