ORDER :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Since common question of fact and law is involved in all these writ petitions, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Jeedhanlal and his wife Kheermati filed two separate applications before the Rent Controller/Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Dabhra for grant of eviction under Section 9 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (for short, ‘the Act of 2011’) which was ultimately considered and granted by the said authority on 24-4-2023 and when two appeals being Appeal Nos.31A/2023 & 32A/2023 were preferred by common tenant Vijay Kumar Gupta, the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur, by orders dated 17-7-2023 dismissed both the appeals holding that Rent Controller was appointed by the State Government in exercise of power conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act of 2011 only by notification dated 6-11-2012, which was notified in the Official Gazette on 14-9-2022, therefore, the date on which these applications were preferred before the Rent Controller on 28-8-2022, the Act of 2011 was not in force and therefore the two appeals preferred before it under Section 13 of the Act of 2011 are not maintainable and accordingly dismissed the appeals and the order passed by the Rent Controller i.e. Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) has also been held to be unsustainable and accordingly dismissed both the appeals. Feeling aggrieved against the orders passed by the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Tribunal, landlords and tenant both have preferred the above stated writ petitions.

3. Ms. Palak Jindal, learned counsel appearing for both the landlords – Jeedhanlal & Kheermati, would submit that the Rent Control Tribunal has committed grave legal error in holding that the Act of 2011 was inapplicable to Nagar Panchayat, Dabhra, as it was made applicable only by notification dated 6-9-2022 published in the Gazette on 14- 9-2022. In fact, by work distribution memo dated 5-5-2022, the Collector, Janjgir-Champa, had already assigned the work of Rent Controller under the Act of 2011 to the Joint Collector and thereafter, notification has been issued on 6-9- 2022 under Section 7(1) of the Act of 2011, which has already been published on 14-9-2022 in the Gazette authorising the Deputy Collector to function as Rent Controller and final order has been passed on 24-4-2023. In that view of the matter, the Rent Control Tribunal is absolutely justified in holding that under Section 9 of the Act of 2011, the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to hear and pass orders on their applications. She would further submit that the date on which the order was passed i.e. 24-4-2023, notification dated 14-9-2022 was already published in the Gazette, therefore, the Rent Controller had jurisdiction and as such, the finding recorded by the Rent Control Tribunal deserves to be set aside qua the observation made with regard to competence of the Rent Controller to hear and dispose off their applications under Section 9 of the Act of 2011.

4. Mr. Rishi Sahu, learned counsel appearing for tenant Vijay Kumar Gupta, would submit that the appeals are clearly maintainable in view of the notification dated 14-9-2022 and as such, the orders impugned deserve to be set aside.

5. Mr. Amrito Das, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, would submit that the applications were considered and granted on 24-4-2023 much after the notification under Section 7(1) of the Act of 2011 was issued and published on 14-9-2022 and as on that date (24-4-2023) on which order was passed, the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to hear and pass orders on the applications of the landlords, therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Rent Control Tribunal deserves to be set aside.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above