ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner herein and landlord-respondents. 2. Petitioner has taken a point of jurisdiction at this stage upon passing of the interlocutory order dated 6th March, 2017 in Title (Eviction) Suit no. 2 of 2016; 3 of 2016 and 4 of 2016 impugned in the respective writ petitions. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that after coming into force of Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011, proceedings for eviction of tenant lie before Rent Controller under Section 19 of the Act. Controller is defined under Section 2(d) of the Act as under: “2(d) : “Controller” means the person appointed by the State Government under Section 31 of the Act.” 4. It is the Sub Divisional Officer, who has been appointed as Rent Controller. Proceedings for eviction, therefore, would not lie after coming into force of the Act of 2011 before the regular Court i.e. learned Court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Hazaribagh, where it has been instituted erroneously by the plaintiff. 5. Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the Notification dated 16th May, 2016 of Urban Development & Housing Department in support of his submission that all proceedings under the Act of 2011 would lie after 15th April, 2015 before the authority designated under the new Act, which is quoted hereunder: – “No.8/Noti/101/2016/N.Vi-2660-In exercise of the powers conferred under section 46 of The Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 and to avoid ambiguity arising out of the language used under section 47(2) of The Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 it is clarified that all proceedings initiated and decided under the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act 2000 and first appeals, second appeals and execution proceedings filed and pending in different Court under the old Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000 shall be governed and guided till their finality under the old Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000 and only the fresh proceedings initiated after the enactment of the Ne Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011 notified on 15.04.2015 shall be guided and governed by New Act. All subsequent proceedings arising out of order/judgments shall be governed under the New Act. It shall come into force with effect from the issuance date of this notification.” 6. All subsequent proceedings arising out of order/judgments shall be governed under the New Act. It shall come into force with effect from the issuance date of this notification.” 6. The instant suit undisputedly been instituted in the year 2016. 7. By the impugned order, learned Trial Court has directed deposit of arrear and current rent by the tenant/petitioner herein in terms of Section 15 of the Jharkhand Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2000. 8. Counsel for the respondents/landlords submits that earlier petitioner had filed an application seeking leave to contest the suit as per Section 21(4) of the Act of 2011. This was allowed by order dated 3rd October, 2016 in Eviction Suit no. 2 of 2016 and also in other cases. It is submitted that petitioner, however, did not specifically raise the lack of jurisdiction of learned Court in entertaining the eviction suit on coming into force of the Act of 2011. 9. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties. The point raised by the petitioner goes to the root of matter. It involves question of jurisdiction of learned Court to entertain the suit itself. In such circumstances, it would be desirable that plea is raised first before learned Trial Court by the petitioner by way of a fresh petition to be filed within a period of 1 week from today. Learned Trial Court of Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Hazaribagh, would take a decision on such petition after giving opportunity to other side/plaintiff within a period of 4 weeks thereafter. 10. In that view of the matter, the impugned order shall be kept in abeyance for a period of 4 weeks or the date of such decision whichever is earlier. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. 11. However, it is made clear that this Court has not made any comments on the point of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner herein.