( 1 ) IN this revision under Section 22 of the A. P. Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Act ), the tenant is the petitioner. The learned I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, as well as the learned Chief Judge, City Small Causes Court (appellate authority), agreed with the contention of the landlord s (respondent) and ordered eviction. Therefore, the tenant field the revision assailing the illegality of the eviction order in R. C. No. 708 of 1997 dated 25-6-1999, as confirmed by the appellate authority by order dated 23-2-2000 in R. A. No. 223 of 1999.

( 2 ) THE parties are referred by their status in the Rent Control case. Petitioner No. 1 is the mother. Petitioner No. 2 is the son and petitioner No. 3 is the daughter. They filed a petition for eviction of the tenant (respondent) under Section 10 (3) (a) (i) (a) and under Section 12 of the Act. Their case is that the respondent is a tenant is mulgi 5-1-750/2, situated at Haridas Market, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad, on a monthly rent of Rs. 715. 00. The building is more than 75 years old and is in a dilapidated condition. Therefore, the petitioners want to demolish the ent