JUDGMENT :

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 04.01.2021 passed by the Commissioner, South Chotanagpur Division, Ranchi- the respondent no.2 in J.B.C. Revision Case No.69 of 2017, whereby the said revision filed by the petitioners has been dismissed, affirming the order dated 29.09.2017 passed by the respondent no.3. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents not to give effect of the order dated 29.09.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi-respondent no.3 in J.B.C. Appeal No.25 R 15/2016-17, whereby the appeal filed by the respondent no.5 was allowed and the order dated 25.04.2016 passed by the Rent Controller-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ranchi-respondent no.4 in J.B.C. Case No.29 of 2015 was set aside. The petitioners have also prayed for restraining the respondent no.4 from proceeding further with Case No. MP 17 of 2017, arising out of the order dated 29.09.2017 passed by respondent no. 3 in J.B.C. Appeal No.25R 15/2016-17, which has been affirmed vide order dated 04.01.2021 passed by the respondent no.2, as, according to the petitioners, both the orders are illegal and without jurisdiction, since initial proceeding itself was not maintainable in absence of the notification issued under section 1(3) Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act, 2011’), which, in fact, came into force with effect from 15.04.2015.

2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the respondent no.5, claiming herself to be the owner-cum- landlady of a shop room, situated at Hariom Market, Din Bandhu Lane, Upper Bazar, Ranchi, filed an application under section 19(1)(c) & (d) of the Act, 2011 before the respondent no.4 on 17.10.2014 (admitted on 13.05.2015) against the petitioner no.1 on the ground of default of rent said to have been due since April 2011 and also on the ground of personal necessity. The petitioner no.1 filed an application before the respondent no.4 on 13.07.2015 for rejecting the application filed by the respondent no.5 being not maintainable, stating that the Act, 2011 was not brought into force in the State of Jharkhand, as necessary notification was not issued in the official gazette of the Government of Jharkhand under section 1(3) of the said Act. Thereafter, the petitioner no.1 also filed show cause reply disputing the claim of the respondent no.5. In the meantime, the petitioner no.2 sought permission to intervene in the matter, claiming to be in possession of the premises in question by virtue of a tenancy agreement dated 01.03.1995 entered between her and one with Chetan Sharma for a period of three years to be further extended on certain terms. Her intervention application was allowed on 28.10.2015 and she was made opposite party no.2 in J.B.C. Case no.29 of 2015 filed before the respondent no.4. The respondent no.5 did not choose to appear and examine herself as a witness in the said case, whereas the petitioners and their witnesses were examined and cross-examined. The said case was dismissed vide order dated 25.04.2016 passed by the respondent no.4. Aggrieved with the said order, the respondent no. 5 preferred an appeal before the respondent no.3 under section 36 of the Act, 2011, which was registered as J.B.C. Appeal No. 25 R 15 of 2016-17. The said appeal was allowed by the respondent no.3 vide order dated 29.09.2017, directing the petitioners to vacate and handover the possession of the premises in question within fifteen days from the date of passing of the order, failing which the respondent no.5 was given liberty to file an appropriate application before the respondent no.4 to get the petitioners evicted from the premises in question. Being aggrieved with the said order, the petitioners preferred revision vide J.B.C. Revision Case No. 69 of 2017 before the respondent no.2. In the meantime, the respondent no.5 filed an application for execution o