Bombay High Court
Vinayak Balkrishna Samant and others
Versus
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd.
Decided On:

Headnote:Section 28-Arbitration Act, 1940, Section 17-Arbitration-lIsjurisdiction-Whether in view of Section 28, Bombay Rent Act such jurisdiction excluded ?

       Held, it is admitted position that the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act are applicable to the premises in question and the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiffs and the defendants exist.

       The words "relating to in Section 28 are very wide and include any suit or proceeding in connection with or having direct bearing on the question of recovery of rent or possession of the premises. Therefore, even if the suit is not for recovery of rent or possession, if the relief claimed in the suit is in regard to or in respect of recovery of rent or possession, it will come within the ambit of this section. Section 28 confers jurisdiction upon the special Court not only to decide the question referred to in the section, but also all matters are incidental or ancillary to the determination of these questions. The words of Section 28 are wide enough to include every suit between a landlord and tenant whether the tenancy is contractual or is continued by reason of the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act provided the relief asked for relates to recovery of rent or possession.

       The Scheme of the Bombay Rent Act shows that the conferment of exclusive jurisdiction on certain Courts is pursuant to the social objective at which the legislation aims. Public policy requires that contracts to the contrary which nullify the rights conferred on tenant by the Bombay Rent Act cannot be permitted. Therefore, public policy requires that parties cannot also be permitted to contract out of the legislative mandate which requires certain kind of disputes to be settled by Special Courts constituted by the Act. Hence, arbitration agreements between parties whose rights are regulated by the Bombay Rent Act cannot be recognised by a Court of law.

       In Greater Bombay, exclusive jurisdiction is given to the Court of Small Causes, Bombay and jurisdiction is denied to other Courts to entertain and try any suit or proceeding between landlord and a tenant relating to recovery of rent or possession of any premises; to try any suit or proceeding between a landlord and a tenant relating to recovery of rent or possession of any premises; to try any suit or proceeding between a licensor and a licensee relating to the recovery of licence fee or charge; to decide any application made under the Bombay Rent Act; and to deal with any claim or question arising out of the Bombay Rent Act or any of its provisions. The claim of the plaintiffs for reasonable monthly rent in respect of the said premises by enhancement of rent provided for in the said deed of lease is a claim or question arising out of the Bombay Rent Act. It also relates to recovery of rent by the landlord from the tenants in respect of the premises governed by the provisions of the Bombay Rent Act since expression suits relating to the recovery of rent or possession" in Section 28 has wider connotation than the expression "suits for the recovery of rent or possession."

       The concluding words of Section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, namely that no other Court shall have jurisdiction to deal with such claim or question are very important. When the intention of the Legislature is to constitute certain Courts which have been given power to deal with certain specified matters as enacted in the Bombay Rent Act exclusive jurisdiction is given to such Courts, and although Section 28 (1) does not, in express terms, exclude an arbitrator, it must be held that, by necessary implication, an arbitrator is prevented from dealing with matters which arose under the Bombay Rent Act.

       The manner in which the arbitration agreement as contained in the said deed of lease is worded, it is not possible to hold that on expiration of the period of lease mentioned therein the agreement has ceased to be applicable. However, the legislative intent embodied in the Bombay Rent Act and the public policy did not permit the patties thereto to contract out of legislative mandate which requires the dispute of the nature raised by the plaintiffs to be settled by the Special Court constituted by the Bombay Rent Act.

       Section 28-Premises let out for 3 years and lease renewable for another 3 years-Petitioner terminating lease after six years-Defendants not vacating the premises-Petitioner filing suit to enforce arbitration clause of lease-deed.

       The manner in which the arbitration agreement as contained in the said Deed of Lease is worded, it is not possible to hold that on expiration of the period of lease mentioned therein the agreement has ceased to be applicable. However, the Legislative intent embodied in the Bombay Rent Act and the public policy did nor permit the parties thereto to contract out of legislative mandate which requires the dispute of the nature raised by the plaintiffs to be settled by the special Court constituted by the Bombay Rent Act.

       For Citation : 1996(1) Mah LJ 511 at pp. 514, 515, 516 : 1996(1) All MR 370 (Bom)