M.R. Sharma. J. - (1.) The only point raised in this revision petition is a whether a residential building within the meaning of Capital of Punjab (Development & Regulation) Act, can he declared as a non-residential building by the authorities exercising jurisdiction under the East Punjab Urban Kent Restriction Act. The learned Tribunals below after discussing the entire evidence have come to the conclusion that the building was being used by the respondent-Society for imparting training in cultural matters might from the time when the same was acquired by it. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to bring any evidence to my notice on the point that the Estate Officer, Chandigarh has objected to the use of the building by the respondent-Society. The respondent was only served with one notice by the Estate Officer and that too about the alleged unauthorised construction of a room and bath room. The authorities below have come to the conclusion that this unauthorised construction had been made by the petitioner. If a landlord knowing the provisions of the Capital of Punjab (Development & Regulation) Act, 1952, lets out his or her building for a purpose which cannot be strictly described as residential and invites trouble for himself or herself, he or she cannot make it aground for getting the ejectment of the tenant. In any event a learned Single Judge of this Court has In Mrs. K. Atma Ram Vs. Kanwar Mohinder Singh etc., 1976 Current Law Journal 148 , taken the view that more change of the user by the tenant of a building which gives rise to the proceedings under the Capital of Punjab (Development & Regulation) Act, 1952 is no ground for ordering the ejectment of a tenant under the rent control legislation. There is on merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed. Revision dismissed.;