The arbitration clause remains valid and enforceable irrespective of the original tenancy agreement's expiration, allowing for dispute resolution through arbitration.

JUDGMENT :

Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.

1. The appeal is directed against an order dated January 30, 2024 passed in GA No. 2 of 2022 arising out of CS No. 19 of 2022.

2. By the impugned order the learned Single Judge dismissed the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, made on behalf of the appellant seeking reference of the disputes to arbitration. The learned trial Judge did not find that there was any agreement between the parties containing an arbitration clause.

3. Learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in appreciating that the respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit seeking eviction of the appellant from the suit premises and in such suit, tenancy of the appellant was claimed to be created by their predecessor under an agreement dated January 27, 2006. According to learned advocate for the appellant, all such agreements contained specific arbitration clauses. The respondents sought eviction of the appellant from the suit premises as legal representative of the person who inducted the appellant as tenant therein on the strength of the agreements dated January 27, 2006.

4. Learned advocate for the appellant further contended that appellant was inducted in the suit premises by the predecessor of the respondents by dint of agreements dated January 27, 2006. The respondents have filed the suit for eviction as legal representative of their predecessor. Rights of the appellant flows from such agreements which contained arbitration clause. Therefore, the agreements dated January 27, 2006 were binding upon the respondents. Moreover, two out of three agreements entered into between the appellant and predecessor of respondents in respect of tenancy did not contain any specific time period.

5. Learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the true purport of the provisions contained in Section 40 of the Act of 1996. According to learned advocate for the appellant, the agreements dated January 27, 2006 survived in view of the provisions of Section 40 and the disputes ought to have been referred to arbitration.

6. Learned advocate for the appellant further submitted that the learned trial Judge came to an erroneous conclusion that the agreements dated January 27, 2006 expired with efflux of time and so the arbitration clause contained therein also came to an end. The tenancy of the appellant was renewed and was continuing on month to month basis on the terms and conditions of the agreements dated January 27, 2006.

7. Learned advocate for the appellant also contended that the learned Single Judge came to an erroneous finding that there was novation of the contract of tenancy. Such finding is inconsistent with the case made out by the respondents/plaintiffs in their plaint. It was admitted by the respondents that the appellant continued in possession of the suit premises since the agreements dated January 27, 2006. Learned trial Judge, according to learned advocate for the appellant, wrongly held that the respondent and appellant were not ad idem on the point of applicability of arbitration clause in the agreements dated January 27, 2006. For the aforesaid reasons, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside.

8. Learned advocate for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the original agreement of tenancy was with the predecessor of the respondent/plaintiffs. It was also contended that the original agreement of tenancy, containing the arbitration clause, expired due to efflux of time. Although, the appellant/defendant continued in possession of the suit premises but since the original agreement of tenancy including the arbitration clause expired, there is no subsisting agreement between the parties. In absence of an express agreement in this regard in terms of Section 7 of the Act of 1996, any dispute between the parties cannot be referred to arb