1. The civil miscellaneous petitioner herein is the tenant in R.C.O.P.No.23 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ambur and the appellant in R.C.A.No.1 of 2000, on the file of the Sub-ordinate Court, Thiruppattur. The petitioner has filed the above C.M.P.No.6275 of 2006 in CRP (NPD) SR.No.133378 of 2003 praying to condone the delay of 140 days in filing the civil revision petition under Section 25(2) of Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.

2. In the said condone delay petition, the petitioner has stated that the respondent/landlord had filed R.C.O.P.No.23 of 1996, before the Rent Controller/District Munsif of Ambur for fixation of fair rent for the building occupied by the department of posts, as tenant, at a monthly rent of Rs.2,500/- and has sought for enhancement of the rent to Rs.12,175/- per month. The learned Rent controller was pleased to allow the R.C.O.P.No.34 of 1991 by an Order dated 29.06.1998 fixing the fair rent for the building at Rs.12,000/- per month. Aggrieved by the said decree and decreetal order of the Rent Controller, the Postal Department had preferred an appeal in R.C.A.No.1 of 2000 before the appellate authority/Subordinate Judge of Tiruppattur, who was pleased to dismiss the appeal in R.C.A.No.1 of 2000 by an order dated 15.07.2003. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the appeal, the Postal Department has now preferred the present revision in CRP (NPD) SR.No.133378 of 2003.

3. The tenant/civil revision petitioner has stated that he has made an application for certified copies on 18.07.2003. The copies were ready on 30.10.203 and delivered on 31.10.2003. The time of 30 days for preferring the revision expired on 26.11.2003. The tenant further submitted that they could not file the civil revision petition within the period of limitation, since on obtaining the copies, the same had to be sent to the Ministry of Law and Justice for seeking opinion and advise and for nomination of the counsel. Thereafter, the file had to be referred to the Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for preparation of draft, which had again to be verified by the Law Ministry. The correspondence had taken some time. Consequently, there has occurred a delay. The extended time of 30 days, which comes within the condonable delay period, expired on 26.12.2003, which happened to be a holiday for this Honble Court. The following two days being Saturday and Sunday, the revision petition could be filed only on 29.12.2003, when this Honble Court re-opened. The delay of 30 days has occurred due to unavoidable reasons stated above. There is no negligence or indifference on the part of the department. Therefore, the Postal Department has prayed to condone the delay of 30 days in preferring the revision.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has filed typed set of papers for supporting his civil revision petition and cited the following Judgments:

(1962) 2 SCR 324 : AIR 1961 SC 1704, Nav Rattanmal v. State of Rajasthan, as held as follows:

"This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Judicial Commissioner, Ajmer, and is directed against the judgment of that court dated 16-12-1954 by which the decree in favour of the respondent – Union of India – was affirmed.

2. Seth Lal Chand Kothari – the original first appellant in the appeal before us (he died pending this appeal and his heirs have been brought on record as his legal representatives – Appellants 1 to 6) was appointed by the Commissioner, Ajmer-Merwara as Government Treasurer, Ajmer-Merwara, by an order dated 20-2-1940, the treasuries to be under his charge being two – that at Ajmer and a sub-treasury at Beawar. Before accepting office he had, under the rules, to deposit Government promissory notes to the extent of Rs.60,000 and also execute a security bond for a like amount with two sureties to cover any loss to the Government in these treasuries. He accordingly made the deposit, and a security bond was e