1. In the affidavit filed in support of M.P.No.440 of 2008 in R.C.A.Sr.No.9052 of 2008, the following are stated:-

1.(a) The deponent is the Manager of the appellant company and as such he is acquainted with the facts of the case. He is authorised to file the affidavit on behlaf of the appellant. The respondents filed R.C.O.P.No.1332 of 2002 before XI Small Causes Court for fixation of fair rent. Rs.67,951/- has been fixed as fair rent erroneously without appreciation of evidence. Hence the appellant has preferred the appeal.

1.(b) Immediately after the orders were passed in R.C.O.P., the appellants counsel filed copy application in C.A.No.13138 of 2006. Stamp papers were called for and on account of non-deposit, it was struck off on 20.9.2006. Due to oversight, the Advocates Clerk has failed to notice the call for board. Thereafter an application was made in M.P.No.236 of 2007 to restore the C.A. which was struck off. But the learned judge has dismissed the M.P. without looking into the fact that it will affect the appeal remedy of the aggrieved person.

1.(c) The appellant has filed appeal against the dismissal order in R.C.A.No.286/2007 and the same is pending before VII Small Causes Judge for adjudication. In the meantime, another copy application was filed and the copies of the order were obtained on 8.4.2008 and the appellant was advised to file appeal along with a petition to condone the delay in filing the same.

1.(d) When the deponent was informed that the copies were made ready, he was away on business tour, hence he could not file the appeal immediately. He returned to Chennai on 24th April, completing his business tour and rushed to his counsel on 25th At that time he was advised to file the appeal along with petition to condone the delay of 240 days. The delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor wanton and the same may be condoned.

2. In the counter filed by the landlords the following are stated:-

2.(a) In the petition it is not stated as to how many days delay in filing the appeal. The reasons assigned in the affidavit are not genuine. After setting out the factum of filing R.C.A.No.286 of 2007 which was dismissed on 25.8.2008 and the restoration application was pending consideration, the appellant submitted that in the mean time another copy application was made and copies were ready on 8.4.2008.

2.(c) When the order was passed by the Rent Controller in R.C.O.P.No.1332 of 2002 on 28.3.2006, the appellant ought to have filed the appeal on the first week of September 2006. From 8.9.2006 till 25.4.2008, the appellant has to explain the cause for the delay and if the days are counted, it would be 596 days. The delay attempted to be explained is, only after the receipt of copy till 24.4.2008.

2.(d) The appellant is a company and not an individual. The deponent is manager. It is not known as to how the Manager has capacity to represent the company which ought to have been represented by its director as per the Companies Act. He has no capacity to represent the company. The appellant has not furnished the date of application after the copy application was struck off. The circumstances would go to show that the appellant was fully conscious of its right to file appeal, but did not file the same for years together. There is no sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The delay has not been explained. Hence the petition may be dismissed.

3. After hearing both parties, the learned VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Chennai allowed the application on condition that the petitioner shall pay Rs.3,000/- as cost to the landlord on or before 11.11.2008. Aggrieved against the said order the landlords are before this Court.

4. The Court below has recorded findings that the petitioner has stated valid reasons for the delay in the affidavit, that there is a provision to condone the delay, that if the petition is dismissed, the chance of filing the appeal, challenging the R.C.O.P. order would be denied to the petitioner and th