JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J.

Heard.

1. The present petition is against the order dated 03.08.2022 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur wherein the order dated 18.03.2019 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Rent Control Authority, Bilaspur was set aside and the case was remanded back to Rent Control Authority to adjudicate afresh.

2. The brief facts of this case are that :-

An application was filed before the Rent Control Authority by respondent herein being the landlord under Section 12 (2), Schedule 2 serial 11 (g) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (henceforth 'the Act, 2011') that the tenant after notice has not vacated the premises and further claim was also made for the arrears of rent.

After notice the tenant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 on the ground that the agreement of tenancy contains an arbitration clause and accordingly on earlier point of time, Arbitrator has passed an award which was acted upon by the parties. Therefore, the dispute even for vacating the premises is an arbitrable one, the petition before the Rent Control Authority would not lie.

The Rent Control Authority upheld the objection & dismissed the application filed by the landlord on the ground that the agreement of tenancy contains an arbitration clause and therefore the dispute would be arbitrable.

Against that the landlord filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal under C.G. Rent Control Act, 2011. The, Rent Control Tribunal remanded the case back by setting aside the order by holding that the tenancy disputes when are governed by the special statue it would not be arbitrable.

Against this the instant petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the tenancy agreement which was executed initially contains an arbitration clause which includes that even for seeking eviction of the premises, it would be the Arbitrator who would decide the lis. He would further submit that as per the agreement subsequently some dispute arose and an award was passed and according to the award amendment of the initial agreement of tenancy was executed and according to it the tenancy would be from 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2026. He would further submit that it was consented by both the parties and subsequent thereto the petitioner is paying the rent. He further submit that the tenancy agreement in uninvocable terms contains the arbitration clause, therefore, the dispute to get the premises vacated would be out of the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Authority and it would be an arbitrable dispute. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has misdirected itself to apply the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Drolia s. Durga Trading Corporation reported in AIRONLINE 2020 SC 929 and the ratio would not support the finding. Therefore, wrong finding has been arrived at by misinterpretation of law. He further placed his reliance in the case of Brij Raj Oberoi Vs. Secretary, Tourism And Civil Aviation Department reported in LAWS(SC)-2022-8-61 and would submit ratio decided in both the cases would go to show that the dispute of like nature cannot be directly brought before the Rent Control Authority and the order of the Rent Control Authority was correct and submit that the order of Rent Control Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit the parties cannot chose their forum for applicability of certain law. He further refers to the ratio laid down in Vidya Drolia (supra) and would submit that for decisions in disputes between the landlord and tenancy since special forum exists, the dispute cannot be made arbitrable as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (for short 'Act of 1996' also carves out the applicability of the law as per section 2 (3) of the Act, 1996 . He also refers to the case of Supdt. of Taxes, Dhubri and Ors. Vs. M/s. Onkarmal Nathmal Trust reported in AIR 1975 SC 2065 and submit that when the statute confers the jurisdiction it cannot be waived or c