JUDGMENT : This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 11.02.2016 as also the order dated 18.07.2016, passed in JBC No. 66 of 2015 are under challenge. 2. The court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi in the aforesaid case has passed the order on 11.02.2016 in exercise of the power conferred under Section 27 (1) of the Jharkhand Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 2011, hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act, 2011’, directing the petitioner to make payment of arrears of rent for the period from March, 2014 to December, 2015 to the tune of Rs.22,000/-within 15 days from the date of order and till the disposal of the application. The monthly rent for each month is to be paid in favour of the first party, in presence of the Court. The Rent Controller-cum-Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi vide order dated 18.07.2016, passed in the aforesaid case has struck off the defence of the Opposite Party/petitioner in exercise of the power conferred under Section 27 (1) of the Act, 2011. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the schedule premises was owned and possessed by one Nandlal Prasad, who leased out 1250 sq. ft. on the ground floor in favour of the petitioner for a period from 01.07.2000 to 30th June, 2020 but the said Nandlal Prasad, since was in financial problem, sold out the said property in favour of the petitioner/respondent, namely, Balaji Skyscrapers Construction Private Limited by a sale deed dated 21.02.2014 and since the date of execution of the sale deed, he is trying his best to pursue the tenant/petitioner to evict the premises, so that he may open a retail shop showroom thereon, but the petitioner has refused to accept the same, as such, the suit has been filed by him. It is the further case that the respondents had filed JBC Case No. 20 of 2014, but due to the order passed in W.P. (C) No. 5499 of 2014 by this Court and in the light of the modification, issued by the Department of Urban Development (Department of Nagar Vikash), Government of Jharkhand, it has become null and void. It is the further case that the respondents had filed JBC Case No. 20 of 2014, but due to the order passed in W.P. (C) No. 5499 of 2014 by this Court and in the light of the modification, issued by the Department of Urban Development (Department of Nagar Vikash), Government of Jharkhand, it has become null and void. The Opposite Party herein, on receipt of summons, had appeared and filed his show cause/written statement denying the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and further taking the ground that he is in occupation of the shop in question, no valid registered deed of lease and the same is existed till the year 2013, executed by one Nandlal Prasad, the landlord and the owner of the shop in question and unless, the lease is expired, no order of eviction can be passed. His further assertion is that the said Nandlal Prasad is the landlord and the petitioner being the tenant under him, therefore, the applicant/Respondent is not the landlord and hence he has no locus standi to file the present application. The further case of the petitioner is that in course of continuation of lease, the selling out of the landed property in question in favour of the respondents, is not proper and further, the landlord, Nandlal Prasad has decided to dispose of the property in favour of the petitioner and an amount to the tune of Rs.8 lacs has been received by him, but he has failed to execute the sale deed. In consequence thereof, a Title Suit, being Title Suit No. 89 of 2014 has been filed, which is lying pending in the Court of Munsif, Ranchi, seeking relief, inter alia, therein, for a decree of declaration that the plaintiffs cannot be evicted forcibly during the expiry of the period of lease. The petition has been filed under Section 27 (1) of the Act, 2011, praying, therein, for a direction upon the petitioner, herein, to make payment of the arrears of rent on the ground that he even has not paid rent in favour of the erstwhile landlord, namely, Nandlal Prasad to whom he has agreed to pay Rs.1,000/-per month. The petition has been filed under Section 27 (1) of the Act, 2011, praying, therein, for a direction upon the petitioner, herein, to make payment of the arrears of rent on the ground that he even has not paid rent in favour of the erstwhile landlord, namely, Nandlal Prasad to whom he has agreed to pay Rs.1,000/-per month. It has been stated in the said petition that the first party/the respondent has purchased the suit property in question, from the said Nandlal Prasad, and to that effect, the notice has also bee issued to the petitioner by way of registered letter dated 25.03.2014 with a request to make payment of the rent in his favour, which has been delivered to the petitioner on 28.03.2014, but even in spite of lapse of more than one and half years, the petitioner has not made payment of the rent and as such, the first party/the subsequent landlord is entitled to get the monthly rent from the month of March, 2014 to December, 2014 @ Rs.1,000/-per month and from January, 2016 @ Rs.1,000/-per month. Upon such petition, the rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner, raising the objection about the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant. The Rent Controller after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, has passed an order on 11.02.2016, directing the petitioner to make payment of arrears of rent to the tune of Rs.22,000/-and continued to pay the monthly rent in Court by handing it over to the first party. The Controller has passed an order by strucking off from making his defence and he has been placed in the same position, as if he had not defended to the claim to eviction. Both the aforesaid orders are under challenge in the instant writ petition. 4. Mr. Bhaiya V. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has agitated the ground in assailing the said order that while passing the order under Section 27 (1) of the Act, 2011, there is no determination of the rent, which was last paid and, as such, the very order passed by the Rent Controller under Section 27 (1) of the Act, 2011 is not proper and accordingly, not sustainable. Further submission has been made that since the order passed under Section 27 (1) of the Act, 2011 has not been complied with, therefore, the subsequent order has been passed on 18.07.2016 strucking off from making his defence and placing him in the possession, as if he had not defended the claim to eviction. 5. Mr. Arpan Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that it is incorrect to say that while exercising the power under Section 27 (1) of the Act, 2011, the Rent Controller without considering the last rent paid has passed the order, rather, it is very much evident that the petitioner has agreed to pay Rs.1,000/-in favour of the erstwhile landlord, namely, Nandlal Prasad and therefore, what has been contended in this regard by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not worth to be considered. 6. So far as the question of landlord and tenant relationship, as has been agitated on behalf of the petitioner, the submission has been made in this regard by the learned counsel for the respondent that the same pertains to its adjudication on merit, but, so far as the question of Section 27 (1) of the Act, 2011, is concerned, the petitioner since is relying upon the Agreement, based upon a lease deed entered with one Nandlal Prasad, aggrieved therein, to make payment of the monthly rent to the tune of Rs.1,000/-per month and the said Nandlal Prasad, since has sold out the property in favour of the present respondents, which has duly been communicated to the petitioner through the Registered letter, issued on 25.03.2014 with a request to make payment of rent in his favour, which was delivered on 28.03.2014, but, no objection has been raised in this regard and, as such, the petitioner, now cannot take the plea of the non-existence of relationship of landlord and tenant in between the petitioner and the present respondent and more so, even if i.e. a ground, having been agitated by the petitioner in an application filed under Section 27 (1) of the Act, 2011, the same can be considered by the Rent Controller while passing the final order and that has got no bearing with an order passed under Section 27 (1) of the Act, 2011. In view thereof, it has been submitted that the order impugned, may not be interfered with and the ground of alternative remedy of appeal has also been raised. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions, that the undisputed fact is that an eviction suit has been filed by Balaji Skyscrapers Construction Private Limited against the petitioner, which was registered as JBC No. 66 of 2015 before the Rent Controller-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ranchi, under the power conferred under Section 27 (1) of the Act, 2011 in which the petitioner has put his appearance and filed his show cause denying the relationship of landlord and tenant. It is further undisputed fact that the suit property in question, earlier pertains to one Nandlal Prasad, who has sold out the property through the Registered sale deed executed on 21.02.2014 in favour of the present respondent, who has issued a registered letter in favour of the petitioner on 25.03.2014 making therein, request to make payment of the rent, which has been received on 28.03.2014, as would appear from the impugned order dated 11.02.2016. The petitioner has failed in making payment of the monthly rent, which permitted the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction conferred under Section 27 (1) of the Act, 2011 for evicting the petitioner from the premises in question (JBC No. 66 of 2015) When the petitioner has put his appearance, an application has been filed by the present respondent under Section 27 (1) of the Act, 2011 for directing the petitioner to make payment of the arrears of rent and also the current rent, which was disposed of vide order dated 11.02.2016, but with a direction to make payment of Rs.22,000/-in presence of the Court in favour of the present respondents and also with a direction to the petitioner to make payment of the monthly rental before the Court in favour of the present respondent, but the same has not been complied with, therefore, on a petition filed by him by the present respondent, an order was passed on 18.01.2016 strucking off his defence and treating him in the same position, as if he had not defended the claim to eviction. Against both these orders, the present writ petition has been filed. 8. Against both these orders, the present writ petition has been filed. 8. This Court before dealing with the legality and propriety of the order, deem it fit and proper to refer the provision of the Act, 2011. Earlier to the Act, 2011, there was an Act enacted in the year 2000. The Act, 2011 has come into effect by virtue of the Notification, issued in pursuance to the power conferred under Section 1 (3), which has been issued on 16th May, 2016, making the Act effective with effect from 15.04.2015. Since the present case arises out prior to 15.04.2015 i.e. the date of implementation of the provision of the Act, 2011 and since the eviction case having been instituted on 29th June, 2015, and as such, under the new Act, the proceeding has commenced. Section 21 of the Act, 2011 contains the provision for disposal of cases for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement and one of the conditions to seek eviction is default in making payment of rent. The Respondent has filed an application before the Rent Controller against the petitioner for eviction from the premises invoking the provision of Section 27 (1) of the Act, 2011. The petitioner has put his appearance and made an objection. The Respondent has filed an application before the Rent Controller against the petitioner for eviction from the premises invoking the provision of Section 27 (1) of the Act, 2011. The petitioner has put his appearance and made an objection. During pendency of the said petition, a separate application was filed under Section 27 (1) of the Act, 2011, which confers power upon the Rent Controller to issue direction upon the tenant to deposit the rent in the suits for eviction, which reads hereunder as :- “27.Deposit of rent by tenants in suits for eviction.-(1), If, in a suit or recovery of possession of any building, the tenant contests the suit as regards claim for eviction, the landlord may move an application at any stage of the suit for order on the tenant to deposit rent month by month at a rate at which it was last paid and also subject to the law of limitation, the arrears of rent, if any, and the Controller after giving opportunity to the parties to be heard, may make an order for deposit of rent month by month at such rate as may be determined and the arrears of rent, both before or after the institution of the suit, if any, and on failure of the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent within fifteen days of the date of order or the rent at such rate for any month by fifteenth day of the next following month; the Controller shall order the defence against eviction to be struck off and the tenant to be placed in the same position as if he had not defended the claim to eviction and further, the Controller shall not allow the tenant to cross-examine the landlord’s witnesses.” It is evident from the aforesaid provision that if in a suit for recovery of possession of any building, the tenant contests the suit as regards the claim for eviction, the landlord may move an application at any stage of the Suit for order on the tenant to deposit rent month by month at a rate at which it was last paid and also subject to the law of limitation, the arrears of rent, if any and the Controller after giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, may make an order for deposit of rent month by month at such a rate, as may be determined and the arrears of rent, both before or after the institution of the Suit, if any and on failure of the tenant to deposit the arrears of rent within 15 days of the date of order of the rent, on such rate for any month by 15th day of the next following month, the Controller shall order the defence against eviction to be struck off and the tenant to the placed in the same position, as if he had not defended the claim to eviction and further, the Controller shall not allow the tenant to cross-examine the landlord’s witnesses. The applications have been entertained filed in pursuance to the provision, as contained under Section 27 (1) of the Act, 2011, which has been contested by the petitioner and thereafter, the order has been passed with a direction to make payment of arrears as also the current rent. The said order has been passed on 11.02.2016 and as per the provision made under Section 27 (1) of the Act, 2011, it has specifically been provided that the payment so determined has to be paid within 15 days of the date of the order, but, admittedly, the petitioner has not paid the amount, as determined by the Rent Controller as per the order dated 11.02.2016 and further, he has not assailed the said order within the period of 15 days and therefore, an order to the effect of strucking off his defence has been passed on 18.07.2016. The petitioner has raised the issue while assailing the order on 11.02.2016 that the rent, so directed to be paid, has not been decided on the basis of the rent last paid. This Court after going across the impugned order dated 11.02.2016, has found that the petitioner has also entered with the lease deed with one Nandlal Prasad, erstwhile landlord on making payment of rent at the rate of Rs.1,000/-per month and subsequent thereto, the previous landlord had filed an application before the Rent Controller for fixation of fair rent, which was registered as JBC No. 20 of 2013 and in pursuance to an order, passed therein, the same was enhanced to Rs.2,500/-per month. It is evident from the lease deed, executed in between the petitioner and the erstwhile landlord, as has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the supplementary affidavit, wherefrom, it is evident that the petitioner has got the premises on tenant on agreement to make payment of Rs.1,000/-as rent per month and therefore, even accepting the fact about the question of enhancement of rent from Rs.1,000/-to Rs.2,500/-per month, as has been enhanced by the Rent Controller in an order passed in JBC No. 20 of 2013, which has been appealed and said to be pending, but the Rent Controller, after considering the rent as has been fixed, as Rs.1,000/-per month as per the lease Agreement has assessed the rent, as Rs.1,000/-per month and determined the amount and, as such, it is incorrect to say, as has been taken as a ground by the petitioner that the rent was determined by the Rent Controller in the impugned order, is without deciding the issue regarding rent at the rate at which, it was last paid, rather, it will be said to be determined by the Rent Controller on the basis of the rent, so fixed under the lease deed at a rate of Rs.1,000/-per month, therefore, the aforesaid ground is not worth to be considered. Accordingly, rejected. The second ground has been agitated that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant, and, as such, the petitioner is not liable to make payment of any rent in favour of the petitioner, but this ground cannot be looked into at this stage, since as per the provision made under Section 27 (1) to the Act, 2011, wherein, it has been, inter alia, provided that if the tenant contests the suit as regards the claim for eviction, in that circumstances, if any application would be filed by the landlord, the determination of amount is required to be made under the provision of Section 27 (1) of the Act, 2011. More so, the petitioner is also disputing the relationship of landlord and tenant in between the erstwhile landlord, but the said question is yet to be adjudicated, while adjudicating the JBC No. 66 of 2015 and therefore, at the stage of consideration of claim under Section 27 (1) of the Act, 2011, the question of adjudicating the relationship of landlord and tenant is not supposed to be looked into. This Court after considering the aforesaid ground has also considered the other aspect of the matter i.e. the order dated 11.06.2016 has been assailed after passing of an order dated 18.07.2016 by which the defence of the petitioner has been struck off by filing the instant writ petition as on 11.08.2016, as would appear from the provision of Section 27 (1) of the Act, 2011, that if any determination would be made about the rent, both arrears as well as current, the same has to be paid by the tenant within the period of the 15 days from the order and if the tenant is aggrieved with the said determination, it is incumbent upon him to challenge the order within the period of 15 days, but the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the order dated 11.06.2016, which required the Rent Controller to pass an order in consequence of making failure in making payment of the rent, so determined by strucking off his defence and it is only thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the ground in assailing the order dated 11.06.2016 is not worth to be considered for showing any interference in the order dated 11.06.2016. Further, this Court is of the view that the order dated 11.02.2016, since has not been challenged within the stipulated period of 15 days, rather, has been challenged only after the order dated 18.07.2016, passed under the aforesaid provision by strucking off the defence of the petitioner and therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to interfere with the order dated 18.07.2016, by which the defence of the petitioner has been struck off in consequence of failing in making payment, in pursuance to the determination, so made of arrears as well as monthly rent as per the order dated 11.02.2016, since the order dated 18.07.2016 is consequence of the order dated 11.02.2016. Since, this Court is not finding any reason to interfere with the order dated 11.02.2016 as per the reason assigned, hereinabove, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order dated 18.07.2016. Since, this Court is not finding any reason to interfere with the order dated 11.02.2016 as per the reason assigned, hereinabove, therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the order dated 18.07.2016. Further, this Court before parting with the order, refers that the petitioner has directly approached to this Court by invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ignoring the provision of appeal, as also revision, as provided under Sections 36 and 37 of the Act, 2011 and, as such, also on the ground of availability of alternative remedies, this writ petition is not worth to be considered. 9. In view thereof, this writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed, both on the ground of merit as well as the alternative remedy.