Appeal filed held competent.

Somasundaram, J.

1. The respondent in R.C.O.P. No. 4740 of 1983 on the file of the Rent Controller (9th Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras is the petitioner in this civil revision petition. The petitioner in the said R.C.O.P. is the respondent herein. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in this order by the nomenclature given to them in the R.C.O.P.

2. The petitioner filed an application under Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, XVIII of 1960, hereinafter called the Act, for eviction of the respondent from the demised premises on the ground of owner's occupation.

3. The application for eviction was resisted by the respondent contending that the requirement of the demised premises by the petitioner for the occupation of his married daughter is not bona fide.

4. The Rent Controller accepted the case of the respondent and dismissed R.C.O.P. No. 4740 of 1983 on 12.8.1987. On 21.8.1987 the petitioner filed an appeal against the order in R.C.O.P. No. 4740 of 1983 before the Appellate Authority with an application to dispense with production of the certified copy of the order in R.C.O.P. No. 4740 of 1983. The Appellate Authority dispensed with the production of the certified copy of the order in R.C.O.P. 4740 of 1983, numbered the appeal as R.C.A. No. 661 of 1987 and ordered notice to the respondent During the pendency of R.C.A No. 661 of 1987 before the Appellate Authority, the respondent filed a petition, M.P. No. 702 of 1987 in R.C.A. No. 661 of 1987 requesting the Appellate Authority to dismiss the appeal on the ground that the appeal filed without the certified copy of the order in R.C.O.P. No. 4740 of 1983 is incompetent and not maintainable.

5. The petitioner resisted M.P. No. 702 of 1987 that even if the Rent Control Appeal was incompetent on the date of filing, on account of the non-production of the certified copy of the order in R.C.O.P. No. 4740 of 1983, the certified copy of the order appealed against was produced before the Appellate Authority on 10.12.1987 and on the production of the Certified copy of the order appealed against, the defect in filing the Rent Control Appeal was rectified and, therefore, the Rent Control Appeal is not liable to be dismissed.

6. The Appellate Authority, on a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances, dismissed M.P. No. 702 of 1987. Aggrieved by the order in M.P. No. 702 of 1987 the respondent has preferred the present civil revision petition.

7. Mr. K.P. Unnikrishnan, learned Counsel for the respondent would contend that Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1974, hereinafter called the Rules, prescribes that the appeal filed against the order of the Rent Controller shall be accompanied by a copy of the order of the Rent Controller appealed from; the appeal filed by the petitioner in this case without the copy of the order of the Rent (Controller is incompetent; that the defect in filing the Rent Control Appeal without the copy of the order appealed against cannot be rectified by producing the certified copy of the order at a later date and, therefore, the Rent Control Appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground that there is no valid presentation of the appeal. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent. In this case, on 12.8.1987 the Rent Controller passed the order dismissing the petition for eviction. On 13.8.1987 itself, the petitioner filed an application for obtaining the certified copy of the order of the Rent Controller. On 21.8.1987 the petitioner filed the Rent Control Appeal against the order in R.C.O.P. No. 4740 of 1983 with an application to dispense with the production of the certified copy of the order appealed against. The appellate Authority passed an order dispensing with the production of the certified copy of the order appealed against and numbered the appeal as R.C.A. No. 661 of 1987. On 3.12.1987 the certified copy of the o