L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

The plaintiff in O.S. No.172 of 2012 on the file of II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, filed this revision feeling aggrieved by the order dated 03-08-2012 passed in I.A. No.1494 of 2012, filed by the respondent - defendant.

2. The petitioner is the owner of the premises bearing No.8-2-293/82/A/796-A in an area of 1,162 square yards of Road No.36, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. The same was leased out to the respondent for a period of five (05) years through a lease deed dated 06-12-2006. After expiry of the period of lease, the petitioner got issued a notice dated 22-02-2012 under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short “the Act”). Alleging that the respondent did not vacate the premises even after receipt of notice, the petitioner filed the suit for eviction of the respondent, for recovery of arrears of rent, and damages for use and occupation.

3. On receipt of summons in the suit, the respondent filed I.A. No.1494 of 2012 under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 with a prayer to dismiss the suit and refer the matter to arbitration. He pleaded that the lease deed dated 06-12-2006 contains a clause providing for arbitration of the dispute, if any, between the parties and in that view of the matter, the suit is not maintainable.

4. The petitioner filed a counter opposing the interlocutory application. She pleaded that the subject matter of the suit is not a dispute arising out of the lease deed and that the suit was filed only after expiry of the period stipulated in the lease deed. It was pleaded that the application was filed only with a view to defeat the rights of the petitioner to seek the remedy provided for, in law.

5. Through the order under revision, the trial Court allowed the interlocutory application, dismissed the suit and directed that the matter be referred to arbitration.

6. Sri B. Venkat Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the filing of interlocutory application by the respondent was nothing but misuse of process of law. He contends that the lease expired by efflux of time and thereby the arrangement under the lease deed came to an end. It is submitted that when the relief claimed in the suit is covered by the provisions of the Act, the matter cannot be subject matter of arbitration. Learned counsel further submits that, assuming that the arbitration clause operates despite the expiry of lease, the respondent has waived the rights under it, once he filed O.S. No.560 of 2012 in the same Court for the relief of specific performance in relation to the alleged extension of lease. He has placed reliance upon the precedents in support of his contentions.

7. Sri M. Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the clause contained in the lease deed is comprehensive in nature and even the disputes that arise subsequent to the expiry of lease, are required to be resolved through arbitration. He submits that once a matter is referred to arbitration, the dispute has to be resolved through an award that may be passed by the arbitrator and that the arbitrator is not bound by the principles of law. He contends that filing of O.S. No.560 of 2012 is for a relief, other than the one covered by the lease deed and such a step cannot be treated as a waiver on the part of the respondent.

8. The trial Court dismissed the suit by taking into account the above clause and after referring to certain decided cases.

9. The three questions arise for consideration before us viz.,

1. Whether the arbitration clause continues to operate despite the expiry of the lease?

2. Whether the dispute, which is covered by the suit, can be subject matter of an arbitration?

3. Whether the respondent has waived the right to invoke the arbitration clause?

QUESTION No.1:

10. The term of lease under the lease deed was for five (05) years comme