SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(SC) 193

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A. K. Patnaik, V. Gopala Gowda, JJ.
Ranjit Kumar Bose & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Anannya Chowdhury & Anr. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL No. 3334 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 15165 of 2010)
Decided On : 07-03-2014

IMPORTANT POINT
Section 6 of the Tenancy Act, 1977 overrides any terms in the contract.

Headnote:West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – Section 6 r/w section 8, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Clause 15 of Tenancy agreement containing arbitration clause – Words ‘notwithstanding anything in any contract’ in section 6 – Will override the arbitration agreement in clause 15 of the tenancy agreement – Suit filed by landlord against tenant for recovery of possession cannot be referred to arbitration. (Para 8)

       (2011) 5 SCC 532 – Relied upon

       (2003) 6 SCC 503; (2007) 3 SCC 686; (2009) 10 SCC 103 – Distinguished

       West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 – Section 6 – Relief of eviction can only be granted by a Civil Judge – The Civil Judge who has jurisdiction to grant reliefs like decree for arrears of rent, decree for recovery of arrears of proportionate and enhanced municipal taxes, a decree for mesne profits and a decree for permanent injunction claimed in the suit. (Para 14)

       Facts of the case:

       The appellants have inducted the respondents as tenants in respect of a shop room and paying a monthly rent to the appellants.

       The appellants served a notice on the respondents terminating the tenancy and asking them to vacate the shop premises and the notice stated that after April, 2008 the relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellants and the respondents shall cease to exist and the respondents will be deemed to be trespassers liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.500/- per day for wrongful occupation of the shop.

       The respondents, however, did not vacate the shop premises and the appellants filed Title Suit against the respondents for eviction, arrears of rent, arrears of municipal tax, mesne profit and for permanent injunction. In the suit, the respondents filed a petition under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 stating therein that the tenancy agreement contains an arbitration agreement in clause 15 and praying that all the disputes in the suit be referred to the arbitrator.

       The Civil Judge dismissed the petition under Section 8 of the 1996 Act.

       Aggrieved, the respondents filed an application under Article 227. The appellants opposed the application contending inter alia that the dispute between the appellants and the respondents, who are landlords and tenants respectively, can only be decided by a Civil Judge in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997.

       The High Court held that the Court has no other alternative but to refer the disputes to the arbitrators to be appointed by the parties as per the arbitration agreement.

       Finding of the Court

       The eviction suit cannot be referred to arbitration.

       

JUDGMENT

A. K. PATNAIK, J. –

Leave granted.

Facts of the Case

2. The appellants have inducted the respondents as tenants in respect of a shop room measuring 600 sq. feet at HA-3, Sector-3, Salt Lake City, Kolkata, and paying a monthly rent to the appellants. In respect of the tenancy, the appellants and the respondents have executed an unregistered tenancy agreement which has been notarized on 10.11.2003. On 06.03.2008, the appellants, through their Advocates, served a notice on the respondents terminating the tenancy and asking them to vacate the shop premises and the notice stated that after April, 2008 the relationship of landlord and tenant between the appellants and the respondents shall cease to exist and the respondents will be deemed to be trespassers liable to pay damages at the rate of Rs.500/- per day for wrongful occupation of the shop. The respondents, however, did not vacate the shop premises and the appellants filed Title Suit No.89 of 2008 against the respondents for eviction, arrears of rent, arrears of municipal tax, mesne profit and for permanent injunction in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court at Barasat, District North 24-Parganas in the State of West Bengal. In the suit, the respondents filed a petition under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the 1996 Act’) stating therein that the tenancy agreement contains an arbitration agreement in clause 15 and praying that all the disputes in the suit be referred to the arbitrator. By order dated 10.06.2009, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the petition under Section 8 of the 1996 Act and posted the matter to 10.07.2009 for filing of written statement by the defendants (respondents herein).

3. Aggrieved, the respondents filed an application (C.O. No.2440 of 2009) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Calcutta High Court and contended that the tenancy agreement contains an arbitration agreement in Clause 15, which provides that any dispute regarding the contents or construction of the agreement or dispute arising out of the agreement shall be settled by Joint Arbitration of two arbitrators, one to be appointed by the landlords and the other to be appointed by the tenants and the decision of the arbitrators or umpires appointed by them shall be final and that the arbitration will be in accordance with the 1996 Act and, therefore, the learned Civil Judge rejected the petition of the respondents to refer the disputes to arbitration contrary to the mandate in Section 8 of the 1996 Act. The appellants opposed the application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India contending inter alia that the dispute between the appellants and the respondents, who are landlords and tenants respectively, can only be decided by a Civil Judge in accordance with the provisions of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 (for short ‘the Tenancy Act’). By the impugned judgment dated 16.04.2010, the High Court has held that in view of the decisions of this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Pinkcity Midway Petroleums [(2003) 6 SCC 503], Agri Gold Exims Ltd. v. Sri Lakshmi Knits & Wovens & Ors. [(2007) 3 SCC 686] and Branch Manager, Magma Leasing & Finance Limited & Anr. v. Potluri Madhavilata & Anr. [(2009) 10 SCC 103], the Court has no other alternative but to refer the disputes to the arbitrators to be appointed by the parties as per the arbitration agreement. The High Court, however, has observed in the impugned judgment that if any dispute is raised regarding arbitrability of such dispute before the arbitral tribunal, such dispute will be decided by the arbitral tribunal.

Contentions of the learned counsel for the parties

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Pinkcity Midway Petroleums, Agri Gold Exims Ltd. v. Sri Lakshmi Knits & Wovens & Ors. and Branch Manager, Magma Leasing & Finance Limited & Anr. v. Potluri Madhavilata & Anr. (supra)



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top