1.      Counsel for the parties present.  Arguments heard.  It has transpired that when the complaint was filed before the District Forum on 24.07.2002, the Complainant, Gajender Kumar was not a consumer.  However, the counsel for the complainant submits that when the notice was issued to the complainant on 16.05.2001 for payment of extension fees, he was a consumer.  Subsequently, he sold the property to someone else.  He was not a consumer at the time of filing of complaint so the complaint was not maintainable.  Somebody else had stepped into his shoe.  How can there be two consumers of the same house.  He should have approached the other forum to seek redressal of his grievances.  Consequently, we dismiss the revision petition on this point only.  Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed, however, opportunity is granted to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Forum for seeking redressal to his grievances.

2.      It also appears that the case is not barred by time.  Petitioner is challenging the notice of 2001 so the time will start from 16.05.2001 when the cause of action had arisen. 

3.         Third submission made by the counsel for the petitioner was that  State Commission should have dealt with the case on merits.  This will entail a lot of time.  State Commission is not supposed to pass orders on each and every issue.  It should be dismissed at the very threshold.