KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. - (1.) Present petition has been preferred by Som Nath (tenant) assailing the orders of two courts below, i.e., Rent Controller, Panipat and Appellate Authority, whereby the eviction of the petitioner from the demised premises, a shop, has been ordered. From recapitulation of facts from the orders of two courts below, it surface that the petitioners are legal representatives of Siri Krishan, who on the basis of a judgment and decree of the Civil Court, had succeeded to the property in a family settlement and thus, respondents, petitioner to the ejectment petition, had stepped into the shoes of landlord. The shop in question was let out to petitioner Som Nath by one Smt. Trishna Devi for a period of five years on 22.12.1992 at the rent of Rs. 600/- per month excluding house tax to be paid by the tenant. It was agreed in writing reduced vide Vasika 4360 dated 22.12.1992 that after two years, there will be increase in the rent by 10 percent. In the eviction petition instituted, five grounds were taken : (a) Non-payment of rent; (b) Non-deposit of electricity charges; (c) Building having become unsafe and unfit for human habitation; (d) Guilty of having impaired value of building by breaking its floor and parchhatti; and (e) The Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority found that the shop is required by the landlord for own use and occupation and the ground of personal necessity was impleaded. The same has been noticed by the Rent Controller as under: "(e) That late Siri Krishan, father of petitioners No. 1 and 2 and husband of petitioner No. 3 was carrying on business of Kiryana in his another shop situated in Halwai Hatta, Panipat. After his death, petitioners No. 1 and 2 were also carrying on same business in said another shop. Petitioner No. 3 is a house lady and petitioner No.2 want to carry on a separate Kiryana business in the demised shop because it is not possible by both the brothers to carry on business in partnership. The shop in Halwai Hatta where presently both the brothers are carrying on business is a small shop and petitioner No. 2 wants to reconstruct the demised shop for carrying on his separate business because he has good experience of Kiryana business and is in a position to invest huge amount." 2. Notice of the eviction petition was issued. Petitioner - tenant appeared as respondent, raised preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition. It was further stated that he is in possession of the shop @ Rs. 988/- per month inclusive of house tax. All averments made in the petition, on merit, were denied. It was stated that family of the petitioner is doing the joint business of Karyana, which is a very big shop having sufficient area. Plea of starting a separate business by the petitioner No. 1 and 2 was doubted. It was further stated that petitioners were owners of other commercial and residential buildings, therefore, they can commence separate business from another property. Tenant - petitioner also pleaded hardship and averred that his left leg was amputated in a railway accident in 2003 and he has no other source of livelihood. Following issues were formulated by the Rent Controller: "4. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed on 30.08.2006 : (1) Whether the respondent is liable to be evicted from the suit premises on the grounds mentioned in the petitioner ? OPP (2) Whether the petitioner is not maintainable ? OPD (3) Relief." 3. Evidence was led by the parties. Learned Rent Controller, after appreciating evidence, held that the entire amount of rent and electricity bills was paid on date of appearance by the tenant - petitioner and therefore, non-payment of rent and failure to deposit electricity charges is no valid ground. Regarding the building having become unfit for human habitation and value impaired, learned Rent Controller concluded that since no expert has been examined, these grounds are also not available to landlord for causing eviction of the tenant. However, from the evidence adduced and the law cited, learned Rent Controller held that two brothers, i.e. petitioner No. 1 and 2 who were joint in business had a legitimate cause to start independent business by petitioner No. 2. Plea of the tenant that both brothers being landlord, can continue to do business on the existing premises or at another premises, was held to be against the law propounded in various judgments, reference to which has been made by the Rent Controller. Therefore, plea that the shop is required on the ground of personal necessity, was sustained and it was held as under : "11. ... ... ... ... ... Thus, in view of my aforesaid discussion, the requirement of the petitioner Sandeep for starting his independent Kariyana business in the demised shop sounds to be bona fide and eviction of the respondent is ordered on this ground. Present issue is, therefore, decided in favour of the petitioners." 4. The eviction having been ordered, petitioner - tenant filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority affirmed the findings of the Rent Controller, discussed the evidence threadbare and rightly concluded that tenant is liable to be evicted. 5. The present petition has been listed before me in motion hearing. The landlord had filed a caveat and is being represented by counsel. I have heard the parties. 6. This Court cannot act as a Court of second appeal. This Court can only come to the rescue of the petitioner, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, in case order passed by the two courts below is perverse, perfunctory or the finding arrived at is palpably, erroneous and could not have been returned on the basis of evidence led. In the present case, the view formulated by the Rent Controller and upheld by the Appellate Authority is one view which is possible. 7. Growth of families and transformation of joint families into nuclear families, is a recent phenomena. Therefore, if two brothers want to part gracefully and start independent business, tenant cannot urge that they are barred from doing so on account of his hardship. The courts have been always guided by the yardstick that the need of the landlord is to be taken into consideration. In the present case, two brothers have joint business of Karyana shop. The courts below have found from evidence that the younger brother wants to start his own independent business in the shop, which is on rent with the petitioner. Therefore, I am not persuaded by the argument advanced by the counsel for the petitioner that they can get another shop vacated for starting the business. Further plea that shop is required for starting the business, is a made-up plea to get the shop evicted, cannot be accepted, without any evidence to substantiate the same. 8. Having expressed limitation of my jurisdiction and opinion that the findings of two courts below suffer from no infirmity, I have no other option except to dismiss the present petition. However, taking into consideration the hardship of the petitioner and prayer of counsel for the petitioner, order of the Appellate Authority that petitioner shall hand over the possession within a period of three months, is modified and it is ordered that petitioner shall be permitted to retain the premises after six months from the receipt of certified copy of this order, subject to furnishing an undertaking before the Rent Controller that he will hand over the peaceful vacant possession after expiry of period of six months and he shall also pay the entire amount of arrears of rent and shall continue to deposit the same before the Rent Controller on or before 7th of each month till the handing over the vacant possession to the respondent - landlord. 9. With these observations, present petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.;