ORDER : Mr. Sangeet Lodha, J. 1. petition is directed against order dated 27.4.16 of the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara, affirming the order dated 26.8.13 of the Rent Tribunal, Bhilwara, directing eviction of the petitioner from a commercial premises. 2. The respondent filed a petition under Section 6, 9 & 15 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 ('the Act of 2001'), seeking eviction of the petitioner from commercial premises, a shop, on the ground of reasonable and bona fide requirement. The bona fide requirement was pleaded in terms that the landlord and his son Rajesh intend to start the business of chemical and textile auxiliaries by establishing a showroom cum trading place. 3. The petition was contested by the petitioner by filing a reply thereto, denying the bona fide requirement of the premises as pleaded. 4. After due consideration of evidence on record, the Rent Tribunal found the bona fide necessity as pleaded proved and accordingly, vide order dated 26.8.13, directed the eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question. Aggrieved thereby, the appeal preferred by the petitioner stands dismissed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal. Hence, this petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Rent Tribunal have failed to appreciate the evidence on record in correct prospective. Learned counsel submitted that it has come on record that during the pendency of the petition, the respondent Rajesh has closed his industry manufacturing chemicals and therefore, the bona fide requirement of the premises as pleaded stands extinguished. Drawing the attention of the Court to the deposition of respondent Rajesh before the Rent Tribunal, learned counsel submitted that the admission of factum of closure of chemical industry by the respondent has altogether been ignored by the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent has acquired vacant possession of a four storey building measuring 20 x 76 sq. ft. in the year 2013 and therefore, the bona fide requirement if any, does not survive on account of availability of alternative premises. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 7. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent has acquired vacant possession of a four storey building measuring 20 x 76 sq. ft. in the year 2013 and therefore, the bona fide requirement if any, does not survive on account of availability of alternative premises. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record. 7. A perusal of the petition filed by the respondent before the Rent Tribunal reveals that the bona fide requirement was pleaded by the petitioner for the purpose of trading of chemicals and textile auxiliaries by establishing a showroom cum trading place. It is true that the respondent had taken the stand that they intend to take trading of the chemicals produced in the industry run by them by establishing a showroom cum trading place but at the same time, it has been specifically pleaded by the respondents that apart from production of colour chemicals and textile auxiliaries they are also engaged in trading of colour and chemicals imported from the outside. Thus, merely because the industry manufacturing chemical and textile auxiliaries stands closed by the respondent, it cannot be inferred that the bona fide requirement as pleaded by them for undertaking the trading business of colour chemicals and textile auxiliaries by establishing a showroom cum trading place stands extinguished. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of this Court, the concurrent finding arrived at by the Rent Tribunal and the Appellate Rent Tribunal regarding bona fide requirement of the respondent of the premises in question cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Coming to the question of availability of the alternative accommodation, it is to be noticed that there was no such case set out by the petitioner before the Rent Tribunal. It is to be noticed that before the Appellate Rent Tribunal the averments regarding availability of alternative accommodation are made in the memo of appeal but there is nothing on record suggesting that the petitioner had sought amendment of the pleadings to incorporate the additional pleas before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. It is to be noticed that before the Appellate Rent Tribunal the averments regarding availability of alternative accommodation are made in the memo of appeal but there is nothing on record suggesting that the petitioner had sought amendment of the pleadings to incorporate the additional pleas before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. It is also not the case of the petitioner that any evidence worth the name was brought on record before the Appellate Rent Tribunal to substantiate the plea of availability of alternative accommodation as set out in the appeal. As a matter of fact, the plea taken as aforesaid, was not even pressed before the Appellate Rent Tribunal. In this view of the matter, the contention sought to be raised by the petitioner cannot be entertained by this Court. 9. In the result, the petition fails, it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.