1. These two revisions arise under the following circumstances: The revision petitioner is the tenant and the respondents are the landlords. In this order hereafterwards, the parties to the two revisions will be referred to as the landlords and the tenant. The landlords filed R.C.O.P. No. 105 of 1989 seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of wilful default in the payment of rent. The landlords also filed R.C.O.P. No. 106 of 1989 seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground of additional accommodation. Both the cases are governed under the provisions of the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. The Rent Controller ordered eviction in both the cases on merits. The tenant filed Miscellaneous Appeals Nos. 7 of 1991 and 9 of 1991 before the Appellate Authority, Pondicherry. The Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeals on merits. C.R.P. No. 806 of 1995 is directed against the order of eviction in R.C.O.P. No. 105 of 1989 and C.R.P. No. 807 of 1995 is directed against the order in R.C.O.P.No. 106 of 1989.

2. Heard Mr.AR.L. Sundaresan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in both the revisions and Mr.G. Masilamani, learned senior counsel appear