Judgment

Misra, J.-Since both the aforesaid appeals arise out of a common order, the subject matter of dispute including pleadings and documents being the same with common evidence resulting into a common order, hence they are being disposed of by means of this common judgment.

2. The present appellants are the tenants and respondent, the land­lord. The short question raised is whether, on the facts and circum­stances of this case, the appellants are validly depositing the rent under Section 9(3) of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease And Rent Con­trol) Act, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), could they be treated as defaulters liable for eviction, when they continued to deposit the said rent as aforesaid in spite of inter se dispute be­tween the landlord culminating by dismissal of the suit for default?

3. To appreciate this point, it is necessary to dwell on the facts of this case. Out of the two appellants, one appellant is a tenant in respect of the demised premises running the cycle store business in HRCOP No. 132 of 1986 for a monthly rent of Rs. 75/- and the other appellant-tenant is running an Engineering Workshop for a monthly rent of Rs. 85/- in HRCOP No. 133 of 1986