( 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 entire building and construct a new building in its place. After such reconstruction, the petitioners want to occupy the suit mulgi for their own use and bona fide occupation to start business in electrical goods. The petitioner No. 1 is idle, and with collaboration of petitioner No. 3, wants to start a business, and therefore, by a notice, they demanded the tenant to vacate the premises. As he refused to do in his reply notice, they filed the eviction petition. The tenant opposed the petition inter alia contending that the mulgi is strong enough, and does not require demolition, that after the death of original landlord, the petitioners who succeeded to the property approached the tenant requesting for payment of substantial amount of goodwill, and when he disagreed, they started creating troubles by not accepting the rent, by throwing garbage in front of the tenanted premises and by making false complaints to the police. It was also opposed on the ground that the petitioners have got a non-residential premises in their possession, occupied by them since a long time, and if the petitioners are really interested in doing business, they would have commenced by now, but with a view to evict the petitioner illegally they filed the petition with false, fictious and untenable grounds.

( 3 ) PETITIONER No. 2 was examined as P. W. 1, and petitioner No. 1 was examined as P. W. 2. They also marked Exs. P1 to P7, including Ex. P1, which is rough sketch of the building plan. The tenant examined himself as R. W. 1, and also examined R. Ws. 2 and 3, and marked Exs. R1 to R17. On appreciation of evidence, the Rent Controller recorded a finding that the building is old and necessarily to be demolished and reconstructed. The Rent Controller also held that the tenant has another house of his own from where he can carry on his own business by making necessary alterations, and therefore, he cannot be allowed to continue in the petition schedule property, which is in a dilapidated condition. Accordingly, the learned Rent Controller allowed the petition and ordered eviction.

( 4 ) THE appellate Judge dismissed the tenant s appeal holding that not only the leased premises, but the entire building requires reconstruction, and that the tenant has open space in front of his residential house in Malakpet area where he may start business, and therefore, he cannot be permitted to stay in the dilapidated premises, belonging to the petitioners.

( 5 ) SRI Balchand, learned counsel for the tenant firstly submits that petition under Section 10 (3) (b) (iii) is not maintainable as the petitioners admittedly have another mulgi, to the possession of which they are entitled to. He secondly urges that when the eviction of the tenant is ordered by the Rent Controller for the purpose of demol