ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against the judgment dated 06.12.2014 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Udaipur ('the Rent Tribunal') and judgment dated 19.11.2015 passed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Udaipur ('the Appellate Rent Tribunal'), whereby the petition filed by the respondent-landlord for eviction of the petitioner from shop/garage has been accepted and appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Rent Tribunal has been dismissed respectively. 2. The petition seeking eviction was filed on 15.09.2003 by the respondent-landlord, inter alia, indicating bona fide requirement for construction of house, subletting and on account of the petitioner having obtained an alternative accommodation. The Rent Tribunal initially passed a judgment and recovery certificate on 30.01.2009, however, by judgment dated 03.02.2014, the appeal filed by the petitioner was allowed and the matter was remanded back directing grant of opportunity to cross-examine PW-2 Chandra Singh and PW-3 Satish and, thereafter decide the proceedings afresh. After remand by impugned order dated 06.12.2014, the Rent Tribunal came to the conclusion that the landlord has failed to prove reasonable and bona fide requirement of the premises and tenant has not sublet the premises, however, it came to the conclusion that the petitioner has obtained suitable alternative premises and based on its finding ordered for eviction of the petitioner. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal. The landlord also filed cross-appeal. After hearing the parties, the Appellate Rent Tribunal dismissed both the appeals filed by the petitioner as well as landlord and upheld the judgment passed by the Rent Tribunal. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the Tribunals fell in error in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner has acquired suitable accommodation and which is adequate for his requirement and as such the orders impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. It was submitted that both the Tribunals have passed the judgments impugned based on assumptions and has failed to return the finding based on the material available on record. It was submitted that both the Tribunals have passed the judgments impugned based on assumptions and has failed to return the finding based on the material available on record. It was emphasised that the burden for proving the acquisition of alternative suitable accommodation is on the landlord and the landlord failed to discharge the said burden, however, the Tribunals below ignoring the said aspect has based on the alleged reason that the petitioner has not proved anything, wrongly accepted the petition for eviction and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and, therefore, the orders impugned cannot be sustained. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. The record of the Rent Tribunal was also summoned, which was extensively referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. The provisions of Section 9(j) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act') provides for the ground based on which the present petition for eviction filed by the landlord has been accepted, which reads as under:- "(j) the tenant has built or acquired vacant possession of or has been allotted suitable premises adequate for his requirement;" 7. A bare look at the above provision would reveal that in a case where a tenant has built or acquired vacant possession of or has been allotted suitable premises adequate for his requirement, the same provides a ground for seeking eviction of such a tenant. The primary requirement for availability of the above ground is building, acquiring or allotment of a suitable premises and the same being adequate for the requirement of the tenant. The primary requirement for availability of the above ground is building, acquiring or allotment of a suitable premises and the same being adequate for the requirement of the tenant. In the petition for eviction, the landlord alleged as under:- ^^fd izR;FkhZ us viuk u;k edku o nqdku lsDVj uEcj 6 esa esu jksM+ ij fLFkr esukfj;k xsLV gkml ds ihNs Vsdjh jksM+ ij cuk fy;k gSA mDr edku o nqdku O;olkf;d dsUnz gS] tks mldh vko';drk dsUnz gS] tks mldh vko';drk ds fy;s i;kZIr] mi;qZDr ifjlj gSA vklikl cgqr cM+s cktkj gS o izR;FkhZ nqdku esa VsaV vkfn dk O;olk; dj jgk gSA edku dks ,oa xsLV gkml cuk fn;k gS o O;olk; dj jgk gSA bl vk/kkj ij vthZnkj xsjst [kkyh djkus dk vf/kdkj gSA** The petitioner responded to the said averments in the following manner:- ^^[k & fd dye la[;k&[k dk tokc bl izdkj gS fd foi{kh us iwoZ esa izkFkhZ }kjk izLrqr fd;s x;s okn dk izfrokn&i= fnukad 16-10-2002 dks izLrqr fd;k Fkk ftldh izfr Lo;a izkFkhZ us bl izkFkZuk&i= ds lkFk is'k dh gS mlesa lsgou ls esjkfj;k xsLV gkml ds ihNs viuk edku fy[k fn;k x;k Fkk] fdUrq okLrfodrk esa esukfj;k xsLV gkml ds ihNs gfjvkse xsLV gkml cuk gqvk gS vkSj gfjvkse xsLV gkml ds ihNs ,d 10 QhV pkSM+h xyh gksdj vke jkLrk ugha gS tks xyh vkxs tkdj cUn gks tkrh gSA bl xyh ds if'pe fn'kk esa ,d edku foi{kh dh iRuh dh feYdh;r dk gS mDr edku okyk Hkw[k.M foi{kh dh iRuh us fnukad 20-06-1990 dks Jh Hks:yky firk Jh vtqZuyky th ikjoky ls ctfj;s iathd`r fodz;&i= dz; fd;k tks vkoklh; ifjlj gksdj foi{kh dk mlesa fuokl gS ,oa ogka dksbZ nqdku ugha gksdj foi{kh dk pwafd ykbZV o VsUV dk O;olk; gksus ls dkQh yEcs&pkSM+s ifjlj o xksnke dh vko'drk jgrh gS bl otg ls nks dejs foi{kh O;olkf;d eky j[kus ds fy;s dke esa ysrk gS vkSj ogka ij foi{kh dks dksbZ O;olk; ugha gSA foi{kh ikusfj;ksa dh eknM+h fLFkr edku ds ;gka dksbZ VsUV dk O;olk; ugha dj jgk gS] flQZ eky j[kus dk xksnke gSA izkFkhZ us egt bl izkFkZuk&i= dh xjt ls >wBs rF;ksa dk lgkjk fy;k gSA** 8. Large number of documents including photographs regarding the tenanted premises and the alleged alternative premises were filed before the Rent Tribunal and the Rent Tribunal after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the alternative premises were purchased by petitioner's wife and by petitioner's own admission, he had two rooms and a garage at the said premises and from the photographs, it was apparent that sign board pertaining to the tent house, light decoration etc. was indicated thereon, which clearly showed that not only that alternative premises were available, the same were being used by the petitioner. 9. The Appellate Rent Tribunal based on the challenge laid by the petitioner, upheld the finding of the Rent Tribunal and came to the following conclusion:- "From evidence collected it is clear that the tenant's wife purchased a separate house in June 1990. It is also not in dispute that two rooms are being used by the tenant for keeping his commercial goods in that premises. The disputed premises is of the size 16X9 ft. and the present premises in occupation of the tenant in his wife's house is more than the disputed premises. From the photo Ex. -5 it is clear that in the premises A-one guest house and A-one tent business is being done. The tenant has tried to avoid the question put to him relating to the running of guest house. When it is not disputed that the premises where A-one guest house is running belongs to wife of the tenant and on the shutter itself A-one tent is written and on the walls of the shop A-one guest house is also written it can be gathered that the tenant is doing the business of tent as well as the guest house in his wife's premises. In the present case the garage is of the size of 16X9 ft. and it has been admitted by the tenant that he is having two rooms in the house purchased by his wife and as per Ex. - 5 the same is in the form of a shop as it has a shutter and on opening of the road with a sign board showing that the business of tent is being done. and it has been admitted by the tenant that he is having two rooms in the house purchased by his wife and as per Ex. - 5 the same is in the form of a shop as it has a shutter and on opening of the road with a sign board showing that the business of tent is being done. This is also not disputed in this case that the tenant has put his commercial goods in the premises belonging to this wife from which it can be deduced that the tenant has started doing his business from is wife's premises. The defence of the tenant that the house of the wife is situated in a 10 ft. lane which is a dead end is also having no force since the premises which is at present with the tenant is also situated at the dead end of the plot No. 488 and there is a passage of 10 ft. going towards the garage. The contention of the tenant about non suitability because of this reason is also without any force." 10. Both the Tribunals have concurrently found that all the ingredients required for application of provisions of Section 9(j) of the Act were available in the present case and, consequently, passed the recovery certificate. The submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding absence of consideration on part of both the Tribunals appears to be without any basis. Even based on the evidence available on record, learned counsel for the petitioner failed to indicate any perversity in the consideration made by the Tribunals and, therefore, the consideration made by the Tribunals cannot be faulted. 11. The availability of alternative accommodation and it being suitable, has been adequately proved on record and the fact that the alternative accommodation is not suitable for the tenant is in the special knowledge of the tenant, however, from the reply as quoted hereinbefore, it is apparent that the petitioner has not alleged/averred a single word regarding the availability of alternative premises not being suitable for his requirement and, therefore, on that count also, the petition filed by the petitioner has no substance. 12. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition, the same is, therefore, dismissed.