ORDER:- The short point for decision in these Civil Revision Petitions is whether the appeals filed by the tenants in the Court of Small Causes Madras, against the order of the Rent Controller directing their eviction were within time. The time for filing the appeal expired on 19th May 1963. The Court of Small Causes was then closed for the midsummer vacation. The tenants filed their appeals on the re-opening day of the Court. The tenants by way of abundant caution also filed applications for excusing the delay in the presentation of the appeals, if there was any. The Appellate Authority has rejected the appeals on the ground that they were barred by limitation and that there was no case for excusing the delay. Under section 23 of the Madras Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, the Government may, by general or special order duly notified confer on such officers and authorities, the powers of the Appellate Authorities for the purpose of this Act. That section further gives a right to a person aggrieved by an order passed by the Controller, to file an appeal within fifteen days from the date of the order to the Appellate Authority. The Government by their order under the previous Act, have appointed the Court of Small Causes at Madras the Appellate Authority in regard to cases arising in Madras. That will also be the Appellate Authority under the New Act. Although it has been held that such Authority is functioning as a persona designate it must be remembered that it is only the Small Cause Court that is designated as such and that will function as the Appellate Authority. In the present case, that Court was closed on the day when the appeal should have been filed. There were however arrangements for the disposal of urgent work in the Court of Small Causes. That enabled suits, applications and petitions being filed during the vacation. I am told that on two days in the week a Judge of the Court of Small Causes sat for the purpose of disposal of the applications etc. But the notifications aforesaid did not refer to the receipt of Rent Control appeals. The aggrieved party could not therefore have filed his appeal during the vacation. To sum up it if the Court of Small Causes that was appointed as the Appellate Authority. But the notifications aforesaid did not refer to the receipt of Rent Control appeals. The aggrieved party could not therefore have filed his appeal during the vacation. To sum up it if the Court of Small Causes that was appointed as the Appellate Authority. and, that Court being closed for the summer vacation at the material time it stands to reason that an appeal filed on the re-opening of the Court should be regarded as in time. But Mr. Venkatasubramaniam in a very strenuous argument contends that in as much as a Small Cause Judge was functioning during the vacation there was no prohibition against an aggrieved person filing an appeal against an order of the Rent Controller during the vacation and, the: petitioners could have done so if they had the mind to do so. But, as I observed earlier, what the Vacation Judge was directed was to receive suits, applications and petitions. There was no provision in the notification in regard to receiving appeals under enactments like the Rent Control Act. But the learned Counsel would however say that appeal under the special Act could be regarded as an application within the meaning of the notification. I am however unable to agree. The suits, applications and petitions contemplated by the vacation notification were original or interlocutory matters and they did not include appeals from the Rent Controller. I am therefore of opinion that the petitioners were entitled to file their appeals on the re-opening of the Court of Small Causes. The appeals filed in the instant case were within time. The orders of the lower Court are set aside and it is directed to restore the appeals to its file and dispose of them in accordance with law. As pointed out by Mr. Venkatasubramaniam nearly an year has elapsed since the order of the Rent Controller. The tenants have been in possession of the property. It is further represented that certain other sub-tenants in the property have vacated and the entire building is awaiting demolition and reconstruction. The conduct of the petitioners in sticking on to the property is said to be causing considerable loss to the landlord. In the circumstances I consider that the Court of Small Causes should take immediate steps to dispose of the appeals finally. Mr. Venkatasubramaniam has undertaken to enter appearance before the Appellate Authority. The conduct of the petitioners in sticking on to the property is said to be causing considerable loss to the landlord. In the circumstances I consider that the Court of Small Causes should take immediate steps to dispose of the appeals finally. Mr. Venkatasubramaniam has undertaken to enter appearance before the Appellate Authority. The appeals will be disposed of, if possible, before the ensuing vacation. K.S. ------------ Petition allowed.