JUDGMENT 1. - This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred to question correctness of the judgment dated 21.7.2012 passed by learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jodhpur affirming the judgment and certificate for recovery of possession dated 23.4.2010 passed by the Rent Appellate Tribunal in Original Application No.535/2004. 2. The argument advanced by counsel for the petitioner is that the Appellate Rent Tribunal failed to appreciate that earlier a suit was preferred by the respondent landlord on the same grounds for eviction and that came to be dismissed for want of prosecution, as such the principles of res-judicata disentitles the landlord from agitating the same cause under the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2001"). It is further submitted that both the Tribunals erred while arriving at the conclusion that the petitioner tenant is having adequate alternative accommodation. 3. Heard counsel for the petitioner and also examined the record available. 4. From perusal of the judgment impugned it is apparent that the Tribunal considered the aspect regarding filing of the suit earlier by the landlord and its dismissal for want of prosecution. Learned Tribunal gave a definite finding that the earlier suit was based on the grounds of bonafide and reasonable necessity whereas the present application is based on the ground of availability of alternative accommodation. The Tribunal also held that by a flux of time the grounds for eviction arises and also vanishes. In the instant matter the bonafide necessity may would have not been existing at the time of dismissal of earlier suit but that may arise at subsequent stage too. With regard to availability of alternative accommodation a finding of fact is given that the petitioner tenant is having three adequate accommodations to reside but just to retain the rented premises the issue has been contested. 5. I am in absolute agreement with learned Tribunals below. So far as the earlier suit is concerned, that was dismissed in default and the same was based on the ground of reasonable and bonafide necessity. The subsequent application was filed by the applicant under the Act of 2001 with a ground of having alternative accommodation with tenant and as such it is not at all barred by principles of res-judicata. The subsequent application was filed by the applicant under the Act of 2001 with a ground of having alternative accommodation with tenant and as such it is not at all barred by principles of res-judicata. With regard to availability of alternative accommodation the tenant accepted that she is having a residential house bearing No.10/254, Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur. The accommodation aforesaid is also quite-3- near to the rented premises. Beside the above, her son and husband too are having their own residential houses. The residential house of her husband is 90, Amar Nagar, Jodhpur whereas he is residing too. The discussions made by the appellate Tribunal with regard to availability of accommodation reads as under:- " 18- vc ge fook/kd la[;k&3 ij fopkj djrs gSa] ftlds rgr izR;FkhZ&izkFkhZ dk ;g dFku jgk fd vizkfFkZ;k & ihykfFkZ;k dks oSfdfYid ifjlj miyC/k gks pqdk gSA bl dze esa izR;FkhZ&izkFkhZ dk ;kfpdk ,oa lk{; esa ;g dFku jgk gS fd vizkfFkZ;k & vihykfFkZ;k ds LoxhZ; ifr xtkuan us viuk jgoklh; edku IyksV la[;k 90 vej uxj esa cuk fy;k gS vkSj mlesa os jgokl Hkh dj jgs gSA blh izdkj vizkfFkZ;k & vizkfFkZ;k & vihykfFkZ;k ds uke dk ,d Hkw[kaM la[;k 92 vej uxj esa gS vkSj ml ij jgoklh; edku cuk fy;k gS ,oa vizkfFkZ;k & vihykfFkZ;k dks ,d edku jktLFkku vkoklu e.My }kjk vkcafVr fd;k x;k gS vkSj mlesa jgokl 'kq: dj fn;kA 19- vizkfFkZ;k & vihykfFkZ;k us vius vfHkopuksa o lk{;k esa Hkw[k.M la[;k&90 vej uxj vius ifr xtkuan ds uke gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gS vkSj ;g dFku fd;k gS fd mDr Hwk[k.M vizkfFkZ;k & vihykfFkZ;k ds ifr us fnukad 19-11-2002 dks olh;r ds tfj;s vius iq= dSyk'k o egs'k rFk iq=o/kq Jhefr 'kksHkk o ikS= gjh'k ,oa 'kqHke dks olh;r dj fn;k vkSj os fuokl dj jgs gSA blh izdkj Hkw[k.M la[;k & 92 dks vizkfFkZ;k & vihykfFkZ;k us vius uke ls gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gS] ysfdu ;g crk;k gS fd vius ifr ds bykt gsrq :i;ksa dh vko';drk gksus ls mls fodz; dj fn;kA blh dze esa vizkfFkZ;k & vihykfFkZ;k us vius uke ls edku la[;k 10@254 pkSikluh gkmflax cksMZ esa Hkh gksuk Lohdkj fd;k gS] ysfdu mDr edku mlus iq= dSyk'k dks olh;r dj nsus dk rF; izdV fd;k gSA " 6. A bare reading of the discussions made by the Appellate Tribunal makes it clear that the finding of fact is given by the Tribunals below after examining relevant-4- evidence. No interference as such under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is warranted in the instant matter. 7. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.Petition Dismissed. *******