NAYUDU, C. J. :- This reference has come before us as correctness of a Division Bench decision of this Court in Second Appeal No. 165 of 1962 had to be examin­ed. 2. The second appeal in question has arisen out of a suit brought by the plain­tiffs, respondents herein, for ejectment and for recovery of rent and compensa­tion. It was claimed by the plaintiffs that the defendants are liable to ejectment on the ground that they did not deposit the amounts of rent accruing regularly or hi time and they continued to occupy the house against the wishes of the plaintiffs. 3. The plaint itself is not sufficiently clear as to the exact nature of the de­fault although in the Schedule (b) of the plaint compensation is claimed on the basis of rent for the period from 8th June to 31st December, 1960 and there­after at Rs. 2/- per day independent of the term of the tenancy. The defendants, appellants herein, contended that they offered rent to the plaintiffs as and when it fell due but the plaintiffs deferred to receive the rent on the ground that they were in mourning on account of the death of the father of the defendants (sic) and that they would receive the rent later. In a similar way the plaintiffs refused to receive rent for the second and the third month following although the rent was tendered, and when the rent was tendered for the third month the plain­tiffs apparently demanded rent at the rate of Rs. 60 per month, which is an en­hanced rent because the rent as per ten­ancy was Rs. 30 per month. The defendants then realised for the first time that the plaintiffs duped them by making them believe that their inabi­lity to receive the rent was due to their state of mourning. Then the defendants started depositing the rent into the Court and claimed that they had not committed any default and therefore they are not liable to ejectment under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1955 (Assam Act III of 1956). herein­after referred to as the Act. It would be useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act in this connection. Section 6 contains the bar against passing and exe­cution of decree and orders for ejection. herein­after referred to as the Act. It would be useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act in this connection. Section 6 contains the bar against passing and exe­cution of decree and orders for ejection. Section 6(1) is as follows: "6(1) No order or decree for the re­covery of possession of any house shall be made executed by any Court so long as the tenant pays rent to the full extent allowable under this Act and per­forms the conditions of the tenancy; Provided that nothing hi this sub-sec­tion shall apply in a suit or proceedings for eviction of the tenant from the houses X X X X X X (e) where the tenant has not paid the rent lawfully due from him hi respect of the house;....." Section 6(4) is as follows: "6(4). Where the landlord refuses to accept the lawful rent offered by his tenant, the tenant may, within a fortnight of its becoming due, deposit In Court the amount of such rent together with pro­cess-fees for service of notice upon the landlord, and on receiving such deposit, the Court shall cause a notice of the receipt of such deposit to be served on the landlord, and the amount of the de­posit may thereafter be withdrawn by the landlord on application made by him to the Court in that behalf. A tenant who has made such deposit shall not be treat­ed as a defaulter under clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of this sec­tion." 4. The question, therefore, that came to be considered by the courts below was whether the defendants were in default of the payment of rent or whether they had paid the rent in time as prescribed; On this question, the trial court on a careful examination of the materials plac­ed before it came to the conclusion that the rent allowable under the Act was not regularly deposited as seen from the records of the four miscellaneous cases referred to in the judgment. It was found that the rent for November and Decem­ber 1960 was deposited only on 4-1-61, the rent for January, February and March, 1961 was deposited on 21-4-61 and the rent for April and May, 1961 was deposit­ed on 5-6-61. It was found that the rent for November and Decem­ber 1960 was deposited only on 4-1-61, the rent for January, February and March, 1961 was deposited on 21-4-61 and the rent for April and May, 1961 was deposit­ed on 5-6-61. In view of the timings at which the deposits were made, the trial court held that the tenants were not en­titled to the benefit of Section 6(4) of the Act. This finding has been confirmed by the lower appellate court which found that the defendants were defaulters as they had not paid the rent to the full ex­tent and within the tune allowed. This is what is observed by the lower appellate court: "Admittedly, the defendants have not deposited rent in Court month by month but they deposited rent for 2 months or 3 months together which is quite appa­rent from the Misc. cases by which the defendants deposited rent in Court and Misc. Case No. 18/61 reveals that the defendants deposited rent in Court for the months of April and May, 1961 on 5-6-61." Accordingly that Court held that under the provisions of Section 6(4) of the Act the defendants should have deposited the rent for the month of 'April, 1961 on or before the 15th of May, 1961 and not later. That the period prescribed for the deposit of rent is a fortnight as laid down in Section 6(4), quoted above. We are, therefore, satisfied that both the courts below were correct in their finding that there has been an irregularity in the de­posit of rent made by the defendants as the deposits did not conform to the re­quirements of the statute. Hence the view taken by the courts below that the benefit of Section 6(4) is not available to the defendants and that they, therefore, cannot claim that they shall not be treat­ed as defaulters under clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act, is apparently on the question of fact which is undoubtedly binding on a second appellate Court. 5. Another point that requires to be considered is whether, as already pointed out, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court can be said to be correct. This decision was given' in Second Appeal No. 165 of 1962 on 15-2-66 (Assam) (un-reported). 5. Another point that requires to be considered is whether, as already pointed out, the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court can be said to be correct. This decision was given' in Second Appeal No. 165 of 1962 on 15-2-66 (Assam) (un-reported). In that decision, the question that came to be considered was whether it would be open to a landlord who had not preferred, an appeal under Section 9 of the Act, when a notice of deposit of rent under Section 6(4) had been given to him, to contend that the defendants were defaulters and whether that question could be gone into, and the learned Judges constituting the Bench held that the omission to file an appeal under Sec­tion 9 precluded the landlord from con­tending that there has been non-compli­ance with the provisions of Section 6(4). We have examined this case carefully and heard the learned Counsel on the point and with respect we feel that this case has not been correctly decided. Section S of the Act is as follows: "9. Appeals -- A landlord or a tenant aggrieved by any decision or order of the Court under the provision of Sections 4, 5, 6 and 8(2) of this Act shall have a right of appeal against the same as if such decision or order .were a decree in a suit for. ejectment of the tenant from the house and such appellate court's decision shall be. final." This section presupposes the existence of a decision or order, against which alone the appeal could be preferred. It is com­mon knowledge that unless there is a decision of a Court of competent jurisdic­tion or order passed by it pursuant to that decision, no appeal could be prefer­red as there is nothing which could be challenged in the appeal. In the instant case, when Section 9 refers to Section 6, the obvious reference is to the giving of the decision and the making of the order under Section 6(3), which alone provides for the same. If an order is made under. Section 6(3) of the Act and it is not chal­lenged by way of an appeal, that order becomes final and cannot be challenged. If an order is made under. Section 6(3) of the Act and it is not chal­lenged by way of an appeal, that order becomes final and cannot be challenged. But that cannot, in our opinion, apply to any action taken under Section 6(4) which only contemplates that when a deposit Is made by the tenant of the rent said to be due from him, the Court is bound to issue a notice to the landlord and permit him to withdraw the same. We are clear­ly of opinion that in the case of deposit of rent made under Section 6(4), there is no right of appeal under Section 9 and there is, therefore, no question of any legal consequence following from the non-filing of an appeal under Section 9. 6. The reference is accepted and the second appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances we make no order as to costs. The appellants are allowed four months time from this day to vacate and hand over the house to the respondents. Reference accepted and second appeal dismissed.