JUDGMENT : K. HARILAL, J. 1. The petitioners are the tenants under respondents 1 and 2, the landlords. They have preferred I.A. No. 9 of 2020 in RCP No. 6 of 2016 of the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act), 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Rent Control Act for short) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with a prayer to return the above Rent Control Petition to the landlords for the purpose of submitting the same before the Munsiff's Court, Kothamangalam. According to the tenants, the subject matter of the rent control petition pertains to B. No. XXX/1102 and XXX/1103 of Kothamangalalm Municipality. When the rent control petition was instituted, the Rent Control Court, Muvatupuzha was having jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the disputes coming under the Rent Control Act in respect of the buildings which are situated within the area of Kothamangalam Taluk. But, on 19.10.2019, the Munsiff's Court, Kothamangalam has been established and thereafter, the above rent control petition was transferred to Rent Control Court, Kothamangalam by the Munsiff's Court, Muvatupuzha. However, the Munsiff Court's Kothamangalam was not notified as Rent Control Court under Section 3(1) of the Rent Control Act by the Government and the rent control petition was returned to the Munsiff's Court, Muvatupuzha and trial continued therein. 2. According to the tenants, there is a notification vide SRO No. 390/73 (Notification bearing No. 39445/B2/72/PW dated 30.05.1973 published in the Kerala Gazette No. 25 dated 19.06.1973) and as per this notification, Munsiffs, both Principal and Additional, having jurisdiction over the areas, within which the provisions of the Act have been extended, are appointed as Rent Control Courts for the said areas. So, based on this notification, a separate notification empowering the Munsiff's Court, Kothamangalam as Rent Control Court is not required. So also, in view of the aforesaid notification, Munsiff's Court, Muvatupuzha lacks jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate dispute coming under the Rent Control Act in respect of the buildings which are situated within the area of Kothamangalam Taluk. Hence, they filed I.A. No. 9 of 2020 to return the Rent Control Petition and the documents to the landlords for enabling them to resubmit the same before the Munsiff's Court, Kothamangalam. 3. The landlords filed counter affidavit resisting the relief sought for in the said application. Hence, they filed I.A. No. 9 of 2020 to return the Rent Control Petition and the documents to the landlords for enabling them to resubmit the same before the Munsiff's Court, Kothamangalam. 3. The landlords filed counter affidavit resisting the relief sought for in the said application. According to them, the aforesaid I.A. was filed suppressing various facts, including the judgment of this Court in O.P. (R.C.) No. 6 of 2020. The landlords also admit that, initially, the rent control petition was filed before the Munsiff Court, Muvatupuzha and thereafter due to the establishment of Munsiff's Court, Kothamangalam by transferring some of the area from the Munsiff's Court, Muvatupuzha to Munsiff's Court, Kothamangalam, the rent control petition was also transferred to Munsiff's Court, Kothamangalam. But on 15.11.2019, the Munsiff's Court, Kothamangalam passed an order that it is not a notified court under Section 3(1) of the Rent Control Act and it cannot take up the rent control petitions. Thereafter, the rent control petition was re-transferred to rent control court, Muvatupuzha where the rent control petition was initially instituted. 4. In the meantime, the landlords also approached this Court by filing O.P. (R.C.) No. 6 of 2020 seeking an order directing the Munsiff's Court, Kothamangalam to send back the Rent Control Petitions, which are erroneously transferred from the Munsiff's court, Muvatupuzha. The Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary) of this Court filed a report stating that since the Munsiff's Court, Kothamangalam is not notified as Rent Control Court under Section 3(1) of the Rent Control Act, all the aforesaid Rent Control Petitions have already been sent back to the Munsiff's Court, Muvattupuzha. So, this Court directed the Rent Control Court, Muvatupuzha to dispose of the rent control petition, within three months from the date of the order. According to the landlords, the notification vide SRO No. 390/73 is not applicable to the facts of this case, as Munsiff's Court, Kothamangalam, is an independent court having jurisdiction and power. It is also stated that already trial has commenced before the Munsiff's Court, Muvatupuzha, PW-1 was examined and documents were marked. Thereafter, the evidence of PW1 was reopened and now the case stands for further evidence. So it is not just and proper to return the rent control petition, for enabling the petitioners to refile the rent control petition before the Munsiff's Court, Kothamangalam. Thereafter, the evidence of PW1 was reopened and now the case stands for further evidence. So it is not just and proper to return the rent control petition, for enabling the petitioners to refile the rent control petition before the Munsiff's Court, Kothamangalam. Even now the Munsiff's Court, Kothamangalam is not notified as Rent Control Court, under Section 3(1) of the Rent Control Act. Thus the landlords prayed for dismissing the aforesaid interlocutory application. 5. Both sides were heard and after considering the rival pleas, the Munsiff's Court, Muvatupuzha passed the impugned order dismissing the said interlocutory application on a finding that the aforesaid notification vide SRO No. 390/73 is not applicable to the instant case and a notification under Section 3(1) of the Rent Control Act is required to confer jurisdiction and power to Munsiff's Court, Kothamangalam as Rent Control Court and this Court has already directed the Munsiff's Court to dispose the case within a period of three months from the date of order of this Court. The legality and correctness of the aforesaid findings are challenged in this Original Petition, invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. The facts of the case are not disputed. Initially RCP No. 6 of 2006 was instituted before the Rent Control Court, Muvatupuzha and the same was transferred to Munsiff's Court, Kothamangalam after the establishment of the said Court and thereafter it was again returned to Munsiff Court, Muvatupuzha for the reason that no notification under Section 3(1) was issued by the Government to confer jurisdiction to the Munsiff's Court, Kothamangalam to function as Rent Control Court. Thus, the rent control petition is now pending before the rent control court, Muvatupuzha, where trial commenced and the landlords' evidence is over, but again reopened for further evidence. So also, this Court has already passed an order in O.P. (R.C.) No. 6 of 2020 directing the Rent Control Court, Muvatupuzha to dispose of the aforesaid original petition within three months. 8. So also, this Court has already passed an order in O.P. (R.C.) No. 6 of 2020 directing the Rent Control Court, Muvatupuzha to dispose of the aforesaid original petition within three months. 8. The first point to be considered is whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the findings of the Rent Control Court, Muvatupuzha that the notification vide SRO No. 390/73 is not applicable to the Munsiff's Court, Kothamangalam and a fresh notification under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Buildings Lease and Rent Control Act, 1965 is required to confer jurisdictional power to Munsiff's Court, Kothamangalam to function as Rent Control Court. The notification dated 19.06.1973 reads thus:- S.R. No. 390/73 - in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section (3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 (2 of 1965) and in super-session of all previous Notifications on the subject, the Government of Kerala hereby appoint the Munsiffs both Principal and Additional, if any, having jurisdiction over the areas within which the provisions of the Act have been extended, to be the Rent Control Courts for the said area. (Notification No. 39445/B2/72/PW dated 30.5.1973 in K.G. No. 25 dated 19.06.1973) On a perusal of this notification, obviously, we find that, by this notification the Government appointed the Munsiffs, both Principal and Additional, if any having jurisdiction over the area within which the provisions of the Act have been extended to be the rent control court for the said area. So the question is what is meant by the expression the Munsiff's both Principal and Additional. It is not disputed that, there cannot be an additional without a principal. So, by the said expression, we are of the view that the said notification is intended for the area over which both the principal and additional are having jurisdiction and power. If the Additional Munsiff is also having jurisdictional power over the entire area of the principal Munsiff's court, no further notification is required under Section 3(1) of the Rent Control Act to confer jurisdiction and power of the Rent Control Court to the Additional Munsiff under Section 3(1) of the Rent Control Act. In other words, where Principal Munsiff and Additional Munsiff are having jurisdictional power over the same area, no further notification under Section 3(1) is required for appointing the Additional Munsiff's Court as Rent Control Court, for the same area. In other words, where Principal Munsiff and Additional Munsiff are having jurisdictional power over the same area, no further notification under Section 3(1) is required for appointing the Additional Munsiff's Court as Rent Control Court, for the same area. 9. When applying the aforesaid interpretation to the instant case, we find that indisputably the Munsiff Court, Kothamangalam is not an additional Munsiff Court of Munsiff's Court, Muvatupuzha. The Munsiff's Court, Kothamangalam is an independent court, which is newly established by transferring some of the area, from the jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court, Muvatupuzha. In other words, the Munsiff's Court, Kothamangalam is an independent Court having jurisdiction and power as that of the Munsiff's Court, Muvatupuzha. Therefore, the Munsiff's Court, Kothamangalam will not fall under the ambit of the notification vide SRO No. 390/73. 10. On an analysis of the Sections 1(3) and 3(1) of the Rent Control Act, we find that two kinds of notifications are required to confer jurisdiction and power to a Munsiff Court to entertain and try a rent control petition instituted under the provisions of the Rent Control Act. Firstly, a notification under Section 1(3) is required to make the provisions of the Rent Control Act applicable to an area, provided that such a notification is supported by the resolution passed by the local authority or authorities. Secondly, another notification by the Government is required to appoint a person who is qualified to be appointed as a Munsiff, to be the Rent Control Court for the local area as may be specified in the notification under Section 3(1) of the Act. 11. In the instant case, it is not disputed that no notification under Section 3(1) of the Act has been issued by the Government, so far. In other words, the Munsiff's Court, Kothamangalam is not appointed as a Rent Control Court for such local area falling under the jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court, Kothamangalam. 12. In the above view, we find that the Munsiff's Court Muvatupuzha is having jurisdiction and power to try RCP No. 6 of 2016 notwithstanding the establishment of Munsiff's Court, Kothamangalam, unless and until a notification under Section 3(1) of the Act is issued by the Government. Indisputably, such verification has not been issued so far. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. This Original Petition stands dismissed.