KALYANI AMMA BHARGAVI AMMA Vs. OUSEPH VARKEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principal question which arises in this petition and for the decision of which this bench has been constituted, is whether an application under Act 1 of 1964 for the determination of fair rent, which was dismissed by the Land Tribunal for default of prosecution, can be restored by it. Three learned Judges of the Court have taken the view, that the Land Tribunal has no power analogous to the power of the civil court under O.9, CPC. Vaidialingam, J. in O. P. 2245 of 1962 and Mathew, J. in Ammad Haji v. Kelu 1966 KLT 819 held that the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte order and Gopalan Nambiyar, J. held in Annamma Chacko v. Mathew 1967 KLT 95 that the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to restore an application dismissed for default.

(2.) S.101 of Act 1 of 1964 enacts:

(3.) R.60 of the Kerala Land Reforms (Tenancy) Rules, 1964, framed under the Act provides, that "for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the Act or these rules, the Land Tribunal shall have power to issue commissions, grant injunctions, appoint receivers and make such other interlocutory orders as may appear to the Tribunal to be just and necessary to meet the ends of justice." There is one more rule, which is pertinent and on it depends the decision of this case; it is R.99 reading as follows: