Judgment Alok Singh, J. 1. Present petition is filed challenging the judgment dated 18.09.2006, passed by learned Rent Controller, Ludhiana as well as judgment dated 13.06.2009, passed by Appellate Authority, Ludhiana whereby both the Courts below directed the eviction of the tenant-petitioner herein on the ground that landlady requires bonafidely demised premises for her own use and occupation. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that landlady has filed petition for eviction of the tenant on two grounds. One tenant is in arrears of rent, 2nd landlady along with her husband wants to settle at Ludhiana, the native place of the landlady and they have no other alternate available accommodation in their possession in Ludhiana, hence demised premises is required for their own residence purpose. Both the Courts below recorded concurrent finding on fact that landlady requires demised premises for their own use and occupation. The ground of arrears of rent was not accepted by both the Courts below, however, eviction was directed finding bona fide need in favour of the landlady. 3. Miss Vinod Agnihotri, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, vehemently argues that husband of the landlady is also having one house in the city of Ludhiana and he has also initiated eviction proceedings against the tenant in the house of the husband of the landlady, hence need of the landlady is not bona fide. Miss Vinod Agnihotri further argues that the eviction proceedings initiated by husband of the landlady against his own tenant has also been decided in their favour and tenant has handed over the possession to the husband of the landlady. Hence, there is no need to evict the petitioner on so called bona fide need of the landlady. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners on being asked repeatedly by this Court what is the evidence to support the argument that husband of the landlady during the pendency of the litigation has got vacant possession of the house from his tenant. Learned counsel could not show even a single material available on the record. 5. In view of this, I am not inclined to accept arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners that husband of the landlady during the pendency of eviction proceedings has got vacated residential house. 6. Learned counsel could not show even a single material available on the record. 5. In view of this, I am not inclined to accept arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners that husband of the landlady during the pendency of eviction proceedings has got vacated residential house. 6. While exercising the revisional jurisdiction, this Court is not supposed to re-assess the evidence once both the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding of fact on the question of bona fide need, it would not be justified on the part of this Court to disturb the findings recorded by both the Courts below, merely because even if two view are possible. Both the courts below have rightly recorded that earlier landlady was residing in Calcutta with her husband where her husband was employed in Transport Corporation. After the retirement of the husband of the landlady from the Transport Corporation, Calcutta, they want to shift to the native place i.e. Ludhiana, hence their need is genuine and bona fide. I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the courts below. Petition is devoid of merit, hence is dismissed. However, in the interest of justice, two months time is granted to the tenant to hand over peaceful vacant possession to the landlady.