Appellate Authority has wide powers and it has to independently consider the matter.

Petitioner – Madras Race Club challenges the common Order made in M.P.Nos.568, 569, 570/2001 in R.C.A.No.123/ 1994, by the VIII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai, refusing to condone the delay of 1586 days in filing the application for restoration of the appeal and consequently rejecting the applications for restoration of appeal and stay Petition.

2. Since common points are involved in these revisions, the Revision Petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common Order.

3. Before we deal with the contentions and the case laws, brief reference to the factual background is necessary, which is as follows:

1. A large extent of land in Velachery known as "Velachery Bungalow" and the site thereon is stated to be the demised premises. On 09.07.1987 the Respondents 1 to 3 filed R.C.O.P.No.2192/1987 for eviction under Sections 10(2)(1), 10(2)(vii), 10(3)(1)(i) and 10(3)(a)(iii) of Tamil Nadu Buildings [Lease and Rent Control] Act, 1960. R.C.O.P.No. 2192/87 was also filed for fixation of fair rent. At the time of initiation of the proceedings, the Madras Race Club [Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking] Act, 1986, [for short, the Race Club Act] was in force and the Government was in control of the administration and management of the affairs of the Club. Custodian was appointed by the Government, under the Act and he was in-charge of the proceedings in the said RCOP. By the Order dated 010. 1993, eviction was ordered after contest.

3. 2. As against the Order of eviction, RCA No.123/94 was filed. RCA No.80/1994 was filed against the Order fixing fair rent. Claiming that they have purchased the property from the Respondents 1 to 3, Respondents 4 to 10 filed M.P.No.1360/1996 to get themselves impleaded as party Respondents in the said appeal. The impleading application was allowed on 21.07.1996 and the Court has directed the appellant Race Club, then represented by Custodian to carry out the amendment.

3. 3. By the Judgment dated 12.01.1996 [decision reported in AIR 1996 SC 1153], the Supreme Court has struck down the Race Club Act on the ground that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court has further directed the Committee of Management to hand over the management of the Club to a duly constituted Committee. The management of Madras Race Club reverted back to the Petitioner.

3. 4. In the meanwhile, by the Order dated 20.03.1997, R.C.A. No.123/1994 was dismissed for default. On 212. 1999, the fourth Respondent Bukhari filed M.P.No.69/2000 seeking assignment of Decree and that Petition was allowed. As against the Order of assignment of Decree, the Petitioner preferred CRP No.1123/2001, which was dismissed by the Order dated 20.06.2001. Special Leave Petition preferred against that Order was also dismissed. When the matters stood thus, in August 2001, the Petitioner filed M.P.No.568/2001 to condone the delay of 1586 days in filing the application for restoration of appeal. M.P.Nos.569 and 570/2001 were also filed for restoration of RCA No.123/1994 and for grant of stay. According to the Petitioner, the counsel engaged by the Custodian did not intimate the factual position of the case and only on initiation of execution proceedings and filing of M.P.No.69/2000, they came to know about the dismissal of RCA No.123/1994. Stating that they have fair chances of success in the appeal, the Petitioner prayed for condonation of delay in filing the application for restoration of appeal. By a cryptic common Order, the Appellate Authority has dismissed the applications finding that the delay has not been satisfactorily explained, which is challenged in these Revision Petitions.

4. On behalf of the Petitioner, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.R.Viduthalai has submitted that the lower Court has been carried away by the length of delay and had not kept in view the Race Club Act, Act 26 of 1986 and the challenge of the same before the High Court and the Supreme Court. The learned Senior Counsel further