Landlord-tenant disputes covered by rent control legislation may not be arbitrable when a specific court or forum has been given exclusive jurisdiction. The applicability of specific legislation and notifications excluding certain areas from its provisions influences the arbitrability of disputes.

JUDGMENT :

Goutam Bhaduri, J

1. Heard.

2. The present Appeal is against the order dated 07.09.2023 passed by the Commercial Court, New Raipur in Arbitration MJC No.44/2023.

3. Brief facts of the case are that Appellants and the Respondent entered into a lease agreement styled as “Railway Siding Lease Agreement (“Agreement”) whereby, the land in hold of the Appellants from various sources situated at railway siding (PSNS14322913) known as railway siding at Dagori was leased out to the Respondent. The lease deed was executed on 10th day of May, 2023 and in the said lease deed, the period of term of the lease was for 3 years and the same was effective from 01.07.2023. The lease rent was fixed Rs.30 lacs per month and the said lease was to terminate on 30.06.2026. Obligations were imposed on both landlord and tenant by the agreement and the dispute arose when the tenancy was terminated by final termination notice dated 19.08.2023 which specify that the termination will come into effect from 31.08.2023. Since the lease agreement contained an arbitration clause, the Respondent resorted to a Petition before the Commercial Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act of 1996’). The Commercial Court, by its order dated 07.09.2023, passed the impugned order (Annexure A-1) wherein, it was ordered that the effect of termination of lease deed shall remain stayed till the validity of termination is decided by the Arbitral Tribunal to be constituted under Clause-15 of the lease deed. Being aggrieved by such order, the present Appeal.

4. Shri Paranjpe, learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that certain obligations were imposed on the tenant and despite notice, the lessee could not fulfill the same, therefore, initially, a notice dated 05.08.2023 (Annexure A-3) was issued by the Appellants whereby, the Respondent was directed to restrain from any illegal activities. As notice was required to be issued before 30 days as per Clause-14.1.3, final termination notice was served on 19.08.2023 (Annexure A-5). At this point, it is stated that the Respondent resorted to a Petition under Section 9 of the Act of 1996. He further submits that the dispute is between the landlord and tenant and was a pure and simple question of land-lordship and tenancy and in view of the fact of instant case, Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (for short ‘the Act of 2011’) is applicable, therefore, the issue would not be arbitral in nature. He refers to the law laid down in the matter of Vidya Drolia & Ors vs. Durga Trading Corporation reported in (2021) 2 SCC 1 and submits that Section 2(2) of the Act of 2011 defines the “Agreement”, Section 2(9) defines the “Rent” and Section 2(14) defines “Tenant” and reading of the Act itself would show that the jurisdiction was conferred on the rent controller to decide any question between the landlord and tenant and since the special legislation was applicable, the right of the parties to approach the Commercial Court was excluded. He further refers that even the agreement itself was not registered, therefore, as per the law laid down in the matter of N.N. Global Mercantile Private Limited vs. Indo Unique Flame Limited and Others reported in (2023) 7 SCC 1, the instant agreement of lease cannot be taken cognizance thereof, it being inadmissible in evidence. He further refers to the decision rendered in the matter of Union of India vs. Sapna Jain and Others reported in (2021) 2 SCC 782 and submits that termination has been invoked as per the Act of 2011 and the parties cannot be referred to the Arbitrator.

5. Per contra, Shri Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate submits that the entire reliance placed by the Appellants on the law laid down in the matter of N.N. Global Mercantile Private Limited vs. Indo Unique Flame Limited and Others (supra) speaks about the applicability of the Act of