ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 21.01.2015 passed by the respondent no. 3-the Rent Controller-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Madhupur in Building Eviction Case No. 2 of 2014-15, whereby the respondent no. 3 has directed the defendant/petitioner to vacate the house of the plaintiff/respondent no. 4 and to pay arrears of rent. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order dated 15.12.2017 passed by the respondent no. 2-the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar in Revenue Miscellaneous Appeal No. 68 of 2014-15, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order of the respondent no. 3 passed in Building Eviction Case No. 2 of 2014-15 has been affirmed.

2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the plaintiff/respondent no. 4 filed an eviction suit being Title Eviction Suit No. 02 of 2014 under Section 19(1)(d) of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2011”) praying inter-alia for the following reliefs:

(i) For adjudication of the suit and eviction order be passed against the defendant from the suit property.

(ii) A decree of recovery of arrears of rent for Rs. 5400/- be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

(iii) Possession of the suit property be delivered to the plaintiff through the process of court.

(iv) Cost of the suit.

(v) Any other relief/reliefs as the court may deem fit and proper.

3. The petitioner appeared in the said suit and filed an application on 06.08.2014 under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC for rejection of the plaint filed by the respondent no. 4 under Section 19(1)(d) of the Act, 2011. The respondent no. 4 filed rejoinder to the said application of the petitioner on 17.12.2014. The respondent no. 3 without deciding the said application dated 06.08.2014 disposed of Building Eviction Case No. 2 of 2014-15 vide order dated 21.01.2015 directing the defendant/petitioner to vacate the house of the respondent no. 4 and to pay the arrears of rent. The petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent no. 2 being Revenue Misc. Appeal No. 68 of 2014-15 contending that the respondent no. 3 acted without jurisdiction as per the provisions of Section 1(3) of the Act, 2011 since no power was conferred to the Respondent no. 3 to adjudicate the eviction suit. The respondent no. 2, however, dismissed the said appeal vide order dated 15.12.2017 and affirmed the order of the respondent no. 3.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the courts below have passed the impugned orders mechanically without applying the judicious mind. The respondent no. 3 had no jurisdiction to try the eviction suit as the Act, 2011 was not enforced during the said period. The said vital issue was also ignored by the respondent no. 2 while passing the impugned order dated 15.12.2017.

5. In support of the said argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner puts reliance on the judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court passed in the case of Basant Prasad vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, W.P. (C) No. 5499 of 2014.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the petitioner is a tenant, however, he wants to make out a case of title over the property in question. It is a settled law that a tenant cannot challenge a title of the landlord. Moreover, the respondent no. 3 cannot adjudicate the question of title, rather the competent civil court only has the jurisdiction to adjudicate the question of title. The main issue before respondent no. 3 was of eviction due to non-payment of rent, which has already been adjudicated. The writ petition is, therefore, not maintainable and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 submits that the petitioner failed to make payment of rent w.e.f. January 2006 and as such, he was liable to be evicted from the premises in question. The pe