ORDER :

Hariprasad, J.

In the captioned cases, common respondents figure in the party array. 1st respondent is an unregistered partnership firm represented by its managing partners. Managing partners of the 1st respondent firm are arrayed as respondents 2 and 3 individually too. They together filed two eviction petitions, against two tenants occupying two separate rooms in a larger building, claimed to be belonging to the 1st respondent partnership firm, on the ground that the tenants kept rent in arrears and also the respondents bonafide needed vacant possession of the rooms to fulfill the requirement of two partners, by invoking Sections 11(2) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (in short, "the Act"). Revision petitioners are the tenants who lost in the Rent Control Court as well as in the Appellate Authority where bonafide need was concurrently found in favour of the respondents. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the eviction orders in both cases under Section 11(2)(b) of the Act, for keeping rent in arrears, were vacated by invoking Section 11(2)(c) by depositing the quantified arrears of rent. In both these