( 1 ) IN this revision petition under Section 22 of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Act ) the landlords are petitioners. They sued the respondents (hereinafter called, the tenants ) for eviction from a residential premises by filing R. C. No. 224 of 1984 under Section 10 (2) (i) of the act alleging that the tenants committed chronic default in paying the monthly rent. The learned II Additional Rent Controller, hyderabad, by order dated 25-8-1993 in r. C. No. 224 of 1984 allowed the petition and directed the tenants to handover the premises to the landlords. In the ensuing tenants appeal under Section 20 of the Act, the learned Additional Chief Judge and appellate authority under the Act reversed the order of the Rent Controller and dismissed the rent control petition. Hence, this revision.

( 2 ) THE case of the landlords has a chequered carrier spanning over a period of almost thirty years. For the purpose of this case, it is only necessary to notice the case of the landlords in brief. The premises bearing no. 4-1-1079 ( the premises for brevity) belongs to one Sri B. B. Mehta, who died in 1980 leaving behind his two daughters, who succeeded to the property. During his lifetime late Mehta entered into oral lease with the tenants on a monthly rent of rs. 160/ -. Since then the tenants were irregular in paying the rents and were avoiding to pay the rents on one pretext or the other. First floor of the building was constructed after 1957 and therefore a notice of termination was issued and a suit being o. S. No. 375 of 1974 was filed on the file of the Court of III Assistant Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad for recovery of possession of the first floor portion and also for recovery of rent and mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 160. 00 per month for the period commencing from 1-5-1973 till the end of february, 1974. The suit was contested by the tenants inter alia on the ground that the rent for the first floor was Rs. 80. 00 whereas the rent for garage-cum-shop portion on the ground floor was Rs. ,80. 00 and claiming of rs. 160/- is not according to conditions of lease. The tenants also objected the suit on the ground that the first floor was constructed prior to 26-8-1957 and therefore the provisions of the Rent Control Act would only apply and the suit is not maintainable. Be that as it may, after regular trial, the suit was decreed for recovery of money of an amount of Rs. 1,600. 00 being arrears of rent for a period of ten months as noticed hereinabove. The other relief for eviction was rejected on the ground that the building was constructed prior to 1957 and therefore the suit is not maintainable. Late mehta carried the matter in appeal in A. S. No. 34 of 1977 on the file of the Court of additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court (Temporary), Hyderabad. There was a cross-appeal by the tenants being A. S. No. 332 of 1977 aggrieved by the decree for payment of arrears of rent. The appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by late mehta and allowed the appeal of the tenants holding that having regard to pecuniary jurisdiction, it is only Small causes Court which can entertain a suit.

( 3 ) LATE Mehta preferred two /second appeals before this Court being S. A. No. 843 of 1978 (against A. S. No. 332 of 1977) and s. A. No. 844 of 1978 (against A. S. No. 34 of 1977 ). This Court by judgment dated 24-12-1981 allowed the landlord s Second appeals holding that the first floor portion was constructed after 26-8-1957 and therefore the provisions of the Rent Control act would not apply and that the rent payable is Rs. 160. 00 per month for the entire first floor portion and that garage and shop portion in the ground floor did not form part of the lease. Accordingly, the entire suit of late Mehta O. S. No. 375 of 1974 was decreed. The tenant preferred S. L. P. 10344 of 1980 before the Supreme Court of India against S. A. No. 844 of 1978 which arose out of th