The main legal point established in the judgment is the enforceability of arbitration agreements in the Tenancy Agreement and the Consolidated Charges Agreement under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and the admissibility of inadequately stamped documents.

JUDGMENT

Debangsu Basak, J. - The Defendant has applied under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for reference of the disputes involved in the suit to arbitration.

2. Learned Advocate appearing for the defendant has submitted that, the plaintiffs entered into a tenancy agreement dated May 22, 2009. By and under such tenancy agreement, the defendant was put into possession of the suit premises as a tenant thereof. Such tenancy agreement has an arbitration agreement. He has referred to Clause 18 of the Tenancy Agreement and submitted that such Clause is the arbitration between the parties. He has submitted that, the parties had entered into a Consolidated Charges Agreement on May 22, 2009. Such Consolidated Charges Agreement also has an Arbitration Agreement at Clause 9. He has submitted that, the disputes in the suit has arisen out of the Tenancy Agreement and the Consolidated Charges Agreement. Such disputes have to be resolved through the agreed mechanism of arbitration as provided in the two agreements. In support of the contention that, the disputes in the suit can be referred to arbitration, learned Advocate appearing for the defendant has relied upon (Vidya Drolia & Ors. v. Durga Trading Corporation,2020 SCCOnLineSC 1018).

3. Learned Advocate for the defendant has submitted that, where the Arbitration Agreement is not in dispute, then, the necessity to produce the original Arbitration Agreement under Section 8(2) of the Act of 1996 stands waived. In support of such contentions he has relied upon ( Ananthesh Bhakta v. Nayana S. Bhakta & Ors., (2017) 5 SCC 185) and (Paras Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Air India Ltd. and Anr.,2017 SCCOnlineCal 13097).

4. Learned Advocate for the defendant has submitted that the Tenancy Agreement is adequately stamped. In support of his contention he has referred to and relied upon Article 5 of Schedule I A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899. He has submitted in the event the court requires the defendant to deposit the original Tenancy Agreement and the Consolidated Charges Agreement in court, the defendant is ready and willing to do so.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that, the documents that the defendant is seeking to rely upon to claim that there exists an arbitration agreement between the parties is inadequately stamped. He has relied upon ( Atul Singh & Ors. v. Sunil Kumar Singh & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 602) , in support of the contention that a document which is inadequately stamped cannot be admitted in evidence.

6. Learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff has submitted that, the tenancy agreement is essentially one of lease. He has referred to the definition of a lease as appearing in Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. He has submitted that, the lease deed is compulsorily registrable and since the tenancy agreement which is a lease deed is not registered, the defendant cannot be allowed to rely upon the same. He has submitted that, since the tenancy agreement is a lease, this has not been adequately stamped. Should the defendant rely upon the tenancy agreement in original then the same should be impounded. The tenancy agreement should not be looked into till the proper stamp duty has been paid. In support of such contentions, he has relied upon ( Cossipore Commercial Society & Ors v. Board of Trustees for the Port of Kolkata & Ors., (2019) 3 CalLT 416) .

7. The plaintiff has filed CS 80 of 2020 against the defendant seeking a decree for eviction of the defendant and a decree for the sum of Rs. 71,72,179/- on account of proportionate rate of monthly taxes, unpaid rent, and consolidated monthly charges. The plaintiff has also prayed for mesne profits from the defendant.

8. The plaintiff has based its claim against the defendant on a Tenancy Agreement dated May 22, 2009 and a Consolidated Charges Agreement dated May 22, 2009. The plaintiff has claimed eviction of the defendant on the basis of such Tenancy Agreement. The plaintiff ha