An unstamped lease agreement with an arbitration clause is unenforceable, and disputes under the Rent Control Act are non-arbitrable, thus requiring adjudication by the Civil Court.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. R. Sarmah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. S. K. Talukdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court have been invoked challenging the judgment and order dated 06.01.2024 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No.02/2023 whereby the said appeal was dismissed thereby affirming the order dated 20.03.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur in Misc. (J) Case No.52/2022.

3. To ascertain the dispute involved, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the facts which led to the filing of the instant proceedings.

4. The respondent herein as plaintiff had filed a suit against the petitioners herein who were the defendants. The said suit was registered and numbered as Title Suit No.5/2020 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur seeking a decree for eviction against the defendants; recovery of khas possession of the suit property from the defendants in favour of the plaintiff as well as for a decree for mesne profit at the rate of Rs.300/- only per diem against the defendants since the 11.09.2019 till recovery of the possession of the suit property from the defendants.

5. It is very relevant to take note of that from a perusal of the plaint, it appears that the suit property is situated within the Lakhimpur Town and would come within the purview of the Assam Urban Area Rent Control Act, 1972 (for short ‘Act of 1972’) in terms with Section 2 (g) of the Act of 1972.

6. A perusal of the plaint reveals that the plaintiff had entered into a lease agreement with one M/S Dishnet Wireless Ltd. dated 10.08.2007 thereby leasing out the property as described the Schedule to the plaint. It was alleged in the plaint that the said M/S Dishnet Wireless Ltd. was taken over by the M/S GTL Infrastructure Ltd. and the said company continued to remain as a tenant of the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that that the defendants in the suit were defaulter in payment of rent and further, the defendants are liable to be also evicted in terms of section 5(1)(a) of the Act of 1972 which pertains to violation of the provisions of Sub-Sections (m), (o) and (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer Property Act, 1882.

7. The defendants appeared in the suit and filed an application under Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act of 1996’) which was registered and numbered as Misc. Case No. 52/2022.

8. In view of the change in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court on account of the amendment to the Bengal, Agra, Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, the suit was transferred to the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur (for short ‘the learned Trial Court’) and the suit was re-numbered as Title Suit No. 44/2020.

9. The plaintiff filed his written objection to the application filed under Sections 5 and 8 of the Act of 1996. The learned Trial Court i.e. the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Lakhimpur at North Lakhimpur vide an order dated 20.03.2023 dismissed the said application filed under Section 8 of the Act of 1996 on the ground that as the lease was for the period from 12 years i.e. from 10.08.2007 and 11.08.2007 and the lease expired on 10.08.2019 and 11.08.2019 respectively. The learned Trial Court opined that as there was nothing on record to show that lease agreement or the license agreement were re