ORDER :

1. This writ petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the order dated 06.03.2017 passed in Eviction Case No.03/16 has been assailed mainly on two grounds :

(i) the civil court has got no jurisdiction to try the case pertaining to eviction in connection with the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2011) in view of the fact that the notification of enforcement of the Act, 2011 has been issued on 16.05.2016 making the said act effective from 15.04.2016 but the eviction suit has been filed on 18.03.2016, therefore, since the Act, 2011 has been enforced w.e.f. 15.04.2016, hence, the civil court has got no jurisdiction to try the case pertaining to eviction invoking the jurisdiction as conferred under the provision of Act, 2011.

(ii) on the ground that the civil court has decided by fixing the rent on the basis of the renewal of the contract which is not provided either under Section 15 of the old Act of the year 2000 or of the new Act of the year 2011.

2. It is not in dispute that the power of revision by the High Court sitting under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised in case of an order passed by the competent court of civil jurisdiction which if interlocutory in nature and the illegality and error, if found, on the face of the order.

3. The provision of Section 115 of C.P.C. does reflect that the question of jurisdiction is to be adjudicated under the revisional jurisdiction as per the provision conferred therein.

4. It has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Tek Singh vs. Shashi Verma, reported in AIR 2019 Supreme Court 1047 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court after taking into consideration the judgment rendered in the case of D.L.F. Housing and Construction Company Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. Sarup Singh and Ors., reported in (1970) 2 SCR 368 has been pleased to hold hereunder as :

“7. Even otherwise, it is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is to be exercised to correct jurisdictional errors only. This is well-settled. In D.L.F. Housing and Construction Company Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. Sarup Singh and Ors., reported in (1970) 2 SCR 368 : (AIR 1971 SC 2324) this Court held:

“This position thus seems to be firmly established that while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 115, it is not competent to the High Court to correct errors of fact however gross or even errors of law unless the said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself. Clauses (a) and (b) of this section on their plain reading quite clearly do not cover the present case. It was not contended, as indeed it was not possible to contend, that the learned Additional District Judge had either exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law or had failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested in him, in recording the order that the proceedings under reference be stayed till the decision of the appeal by the High Court in the proceedings for specific performance of the agreement in question. Clause (c) also does not seem to apply to the case in hand. The words “illegally” and “with material irregularity” as used in this clause do not cover either errors of fact or of law; they do not refer to the decision arrived at but merely to the manner in which it is reached. The errors contemplated by this clause may, in our view, relate either to breach of some provision of law or to material defects of procedure affecting the ultimate decision, and not to errors either of fact or of law, after the prescribed formalities have been complied with. The High Court does not seem to have adverted to the limitation imposed on its power under Section 115 of the Code. Merely because the High Court would have felt inclined, had it dealt with the matter initially, to come to a different conclusion on the question of continuing stay of the reference proceedings pen