Sharad Kumar Gupta, J.

1. In this writ petition, the challenge levied is to the order dated 13.01.2014 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Rent Controlling Authority, Raipur, in Case No. 01-90(6) year 2011-12, whereby and whereunder the petitioner was ordered to hand over the vacant possession of the disputed house and to pay the arrears of rent to respondent No.1 within two months.

2. It is admitted by the petitioner that he is the tenant of respondent No.1 at the disputed house situated in Ward No. 19, Fafadih, Raipur on the rent of Rs. 1000/- per month. For the last few months respondent No.1 is not accepting the rent from him.

3. In brief, the case of respondent No.1 is that for the last two-three years the petitioner is not tendering rent to him. He wants to marry his adult son Toran Dewangan, thus he has the bona fide need of the disputed house. He has his own house in Santoshi Nagar, Khamtarai at Raipur which is not suitable for accommodating his family.

4. In brief, the petitioner's case is that respondent No. 1 himself is not accepting the rent, he has not committed any wrong act regarding the tenancy. He is not getting any other rented house despite of serious attempts.

5. Respondent No. 1 had filed an application under Section 12 of the Chhattisgarh Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as 'the Act, 1961') before the Rent Controlling Authority, Raipur which had passed the aforesaid order. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur (hereafter called as 'the Tribunal') whereby and whereunder the said appeal was dismissed vide the order dated 22.04.2016 (Annexure P/5) on the ground that the said appeal is not maintainable.

6. Shri Sunil Pillai, counsel for the petitioner emphatically argued that at the time of filing of the aforesaid application, the Act, 1961 was applicable and the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (hereinafter called as the Act, 2011) was not applicable, thus jurisdiction was vested with the Civil Court and the Rent Controlling Authority has no jurisdiction to decide the said application. Respondent No. 1 had not given him two months' prior notice regarding the arrears of rent under the provisions of the Act, 1961. Thus, the aforesaid impugned order (Annexure P/1) passed by the Rent Controlling Authority deserves to be set aside.

7. Shri M.H. Baig, counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri R.K. Gupta, Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondent No.2 argued that the impugned order is in accordance with law. The petitioner has not raised any objection before the Rent Controlling Authority that it has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the said application. Hence, the same does not require to be interfered with.

8. Respondent No.1 had filed said application before the Rent Controlling Authority on 27.02.2012. The Act, 2011 came into force from the date of its publication in the official Gazette i.e. 06.11.2012. Thus, it is very clear that on 27.02.2012, the Act, 1961 was in force and the Act, 2011 was not applicable.

9. As per the provisions of Section 12 of the Act, 1961 a landlord may file suit for eviction before Civil Court on specific grounds mentioned therein against the tenant.

10. As per the provisions of Section 23-J of the Act, 1961 a landlord of special category mentioned therein only may file application for the eviction of the tenant before the Rent Controlling Authority on the ground of bona fide requirement.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the full Bench decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Harbans Singh v. Smt. Margrat G. Bhingardive {AIR 1990 MP 191} wherein the High Court has observed that the widow who falls in the special category of 'landlord' as defined in Section 23-J (iii) of the Act, 1961 can maintain an application before the Rent Controlling Authority under Section 23-A(a) of the Act, 1961 for the joint need of herself and her married sons who do not fall in