Petition to dispense with certified copy of the order not necessary.

1. C.R.P.No.530 of 1997 is against the order dated 29.11.1996 in R.C.A.No.8 of 1995 on the file of the VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras, dismissing the appeal preferred against R.C.O.P.No.2271 of 1993 on the file of the XIV Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras.

2. C.R.P.No.531 of 1997 is against the order dated 29.11.1996 in M.P.No.600 of 1996 in R.C.A.No.8 of 1995 on the file of the VII Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras. The said M.P.No.600 of 1996 was filed for condoning the delay of 135 days in filing the certified copy of the order of the Rent Controller in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal itself was dismissed for non-production of the certified copy of the order.

3. C.R.P.No.583 of 1997 is against the order dated 29.10.1996 in a Memo SR.No.24726 of 1996 in R.C.A.No.402 of 1994; C.R.P.No.485 of 1994 is against the order in M.P.S.R..No.24729 of 1996 in R.C.A.No.402 of of 1994; while C.R.P.No.585 of 1997 is against the order dated 29.10.1996 in M.P.S.R.No.24728 of 1996 in R.C.A.No.402 of 1994. These three orders relate to the very same appeal i.e, R.C.A.No.402 of 1994. The said R.C.A.No.402 of 1994 was filed against the order dated 29.4.1994 in R.C.O.P.No.2981 of 1992 by the tenant against the order of eviction.

4. The tenant in the above R.C.A.No.402 of 1994. filed a petition under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act under S.R.No.24728 of 1996 for condoning the delay of 14 days in filing a petition to restore R.C.A.No.402 of 1994, dismissed for default on 30.8.1996. The tenant filed another petition under S.R.No.24729 of 1996 to restore the appeal R.C.A.No.402 of 1994, dismissed for default on 30.8.1996. He filed a memo under S.R.No.24726 of 1996 for receiving the certified copy of the order in R.C.O.P.No.2981 of 1992 in R.C.A.No.402 of 1994.

5. C.R.P.No.779 of 1997 is against the order in M.P.No.843 of 1996 in R.C.A.N0.169 of 1995, dated 3.3.1997 on the file of the VIIth Judge, Small Causes Court, Madras. While, C.R.P.No.897 of 1997 is against the order in M.P.S.R.No.24758 of 1996 in R.C.A.No.169 of 1995, dated 3.3.1997. M.P.No.843 of 1996 is for condoning the delay of 473 days in filing the certified copy of the order of the Rent Controller for the purpose of the appeal. M.P.S.R. No.24758 of 1996 was for setting aside the order of dismissal and restore R.C.A.No. 169 of 1995.

6. C.R.P.No. 1933 of 1997 is against the order dated 25.6.1997 in M.P.No.316 of 1997 in R.C.A.No. 118 of 1994. The said petition was for dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation as the certified copy of the order of the Rent Controller was not filed in time in the appeal.

7. C.R.P.No.1952 of 1997 is against the order dated 17.3.1997 in R.C.O.P.No.60 of 1996, confirming the order of the Rent Controller, dated 16.11.1995 in R.C.O.P.No.1911 of 1994. While C.R.P.No.1953 of 1997 is against the order in M.P.No.1040 of 1996, dated 17.3.1997 in R.C.A.No.60 of 1996, dismissing the said petition filed for condoning the delay of 139 days in filing the certified copy of the fair and decretal order in R.C.O.P.No.1911 of 1994. The appellate authority was not satisfied with the reasons for condoning the delay of 139 days in filing the certified copies. Since the said petition was rejected, the appellate authority by a consequential order rejected the appeal itself i.e., R.C.A.No.60 of 1996. Hence, the aggrieved tenant suffering an eviction order is the petitioner in both these revision petitions.

8. In C.R.P.Nos.779 and 897 of 1997 and C.R.P.No.1728 of 1997, the point for consideration is: Whether the delay of 473 days and 199 days in filing the certified copy is to be condoned or not.

9. In C.R.P.No.1933 of 1997, the point involved is: Whether the filing of the certified copy on 28.2.1995, which was made ready on 27.10.1994 and obtained on 3.2.1995, without a petition for condoning the delay is proper.

10. In all the above cases, the Rent Control appeals were filed before the appellate authority without the certified copy of the order of the Re