Judgment Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. Chowdhary Ram, aged 92 years, had filed an ejectment petition to evict the petitioners-tenants from the shop situated at Sutehri Road, within the municipal limits of Hoshiarpur. The shop was rented out to one Prem Singh at the rate of Rs. 420/- per month. Prem Singh died in the month of October 2001. The petitioners-tenants are the legal heirs of Prem Singh. Chowdhary Ram had two sons, namely Sudarshan Kumar and Ashok Kumar. The family of both his sons is residing in the house of Chowdhary Ram. It has been stated that Ashok Kumar had started various businesses to earn his livelihood and ultimately he started running a business of Guest House at Dharamshala (McLeodganj) Himachal Pradesh in partnership with some other person. It has come in evidence that two children of Ashok Kumar along with his wife are residing with the landlord-respondent and he is looking after them and paying their school fee. In the ejectment-petition, a ground was taken that shop is required for running a Beauty Parlour by the wife of Ashok Kumar. 2. Notice was issued and the written statement was filed by the petitioners- respondents wherein they denied the averments made in the ejectment petition and stated that the landlord demanded Rs. 800/- as rent of the shop w.e.f. 1.11.2001 but the petitioners only agreed to pay Rs. 500/- per month. This infuriated the landlord and he had filed the ejectment petition. It has been further stated that the landlord has various other shops and he cannot opt for this particular shop. Both the Courts below found merit in the ejectment petition and ordered ejectment of the petitioners. 3. Mr. Dhillon appearing for the petitioners (tenants) has stated that it has come in evidence of landlord Chowdhary Ram that a shop was lying vacant and yet the ejectment petition has been filed. This submission was also made before learned Rent Controller. Learned Rent Controller, after analyzing the evidence, found that the shop which was vacated, the internal wall of that shop was removed and two shops were joined into one shop by another son of landlord namely Sudarshan Kumar. 4. This submission was also made before learned Rent Controller. Learned Rent Controller, after analyzing the evidence, found that the shop which was vacated, the internal wall of that shop was removed and two shops were joined into one shop by another son of landlord namely Sudarshan Kumar. 4. Learned Rent Controller relied upon judgment rendered in Joginder Pal v. Naval Kishore Bahal, 2002(1) RCR(Rent) 582 : 2002(2) Punjab Law Reporter 625 wherein the word "own use" has been defined to include not only dependents of the landlord but also the persons upon whom the landlord is dependent. 5. Both the Courts below further found that the premises are required for running a Beauty Parlour by wife of Ashok Kumar. Aggrieved against the order passed by learned Rent Controller, an appeal was filed. Learned Appellate Court below also placed reliance upon Joginder Pals case (supra) and subsequent judgments to hold that it is the need of the landlord which is to be appreciated and held that the landlord has a bona fide requirement and thereby upheld the order passed by learned Rent Controller. 6. Mr. Dhillon, during the course of arguments has further stated that Mrs. Prem is a Post Graduate (M.A.) and she does not require the premises for running the Beauty Parlour. He has further stated that the family is join and, therefore, it cannot be said that the landlord is dependent upon Mrs. Prem. This Court is conscious that while exercising revisional jurisdiction it cannot substitute its own opinion with the opinion of learned Appellate Court below. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court cannot act as second Appellate Court. The findings returned by the two Courts below are neither perverse nor perfunctory. The opinion formulated by the two Courts below is one opinion which can be formulated from the facts and circumstances of the case. It has been stated by Honble the Apex Court that bona fide requirement (for own use) is to be construed liberally and the demised premises cant be got vacated by the landlord not only for his own dependents but also for the persons on whom he is dependent. Undisputedly, the landlord is 92 years old. It can be safely inferred that day-to-day needs of the landlord are being looked after by Mrs. Prem, wife of his son Ashok Kumar. Undisputedly, the landlord is 92 years old. It can be safely inferred that day-to-day needs of the landlord are being looked after by Mrs. Prem, wife of his son Ashok Kumar. Therefore, I find no justification to interfere in the findings returned by both the Courts below. Hence, this Court has no option left but to dismiss the present revision petition. 7. At this stage, Mr. Dhillon has stated that the petitioners have no other source of livelihood except the shop which is under their tenancy and after the death of Prem Singh, his family may be provided some solace to find some alternative place. 8. At this stage, Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate, appearing for the Caveator, has stated that no rent has been paid by the petitioners, therefore, no time be granted to them to make alternative arrangement. 9. Taking into consideration that entire family of deceased Prem Singh is dependent upon the business run by him, I am of the view that sufficient time be provided to the tenants to make alternative arrangement. 10. Mr. Dhillon has stated that entire arrears of the rent shall be tendered within one month before learned Rent Controller, Hoshiarpur. On furnishing an undertaking that the shops shall be vacated within the period of nine months and the rent shall be paid on or before 7th of each month and on tendering entire arrears of rent, the petitioners shall not be evicted for nine months. Order accordingly.