AMMAD Vs. KUNHABDULLA K.V

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The review petition is admitted. The respondent has appeared.

(2.) O.P.(RC) 173/2017 was filed against an order allowing a review application by the gram nyayalaya. The eviction was ordered ex parte. The ex parte order was set aside and that order was reviewed by the gram nyayalaya. We found that the gram nyayalaya did not have jurisdiction to pass any order in a rent control proceedings. It was because no notification under Sec.3(1) of Act 2 of 1965 was issued. Therefore we quashed all the orders passed by the gram nyayalaya and directed it to return the rent control petition to the petitioner for presentation before the proper court.

(3.) The said order is sought to be reviewed in the present proceedings. The review petitioner contends that the rent control petition was not filed directly before the gram nyayalaya. It is also contended that as per an official memorandum issued by the high court, the district judge, Thrissur transferred the rent control petition from the file of the regular rent control court to the gram nyayalaya for disposal. Therefore it is contended that the order in O.P(RC) 173/2017 is liable to be reviewed inasmuch as the rent control petition was not filed directly before the gram nyayalaya.