Hon'ble BHANDARI, J.—By this writ petition, a challenge has been made the order dated 10.4.2006 passed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur and the order dated 19.2.2009 passed by he Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur.

2. It is a case where after termination of lease pursuant to the provisions of Section 106 and 111(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short 'the Act of 1882'), when premises was not vacated on expiry of period of 15 days, respondents No.3 to 5 preferred application under Section 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short 'the Act of 2001'). It was in the background that petitioner No.1 is a Govt. of India enterprise, hence, as per Sec. 3(x), provisions of Chapter II and III of the Act of 2001 are not applicable. Petition preferred by he respondents No.3 to 5 was allowed by the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur vide order dated 10.4.2006. Petitioners had thereafter preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed by the Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that as per lese agreement, dispute was referable to the Arbitrator thus provision of Sec. 18 of the Act of 2001 was wrongly invoked by the respondents-landlord. This is more so when Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a Central Act thus State Act cannot have overriding effect over it in absence of assent of the President of India.

4. In the alternative, Section 18 of the Act of 2001 does not exclude the jurisdiction of arbitration if proviso to Section 18 is given proper interpretation. as per proviso, where Chapter II and III do not apply then provisions of the Act of 1882, Indian Contract Act and any other substantive law remains applicable, as if such provision would have been applied if the dispute been brought before the civil Court by way of a suit.

5. In the light of the aforesaid, provisions of the Act of 1996 being a substantive law, remains applicable. If the second proviso to Section 18 of the Act of 2001 is seen then exclusion of certain legislation have been given in specific terms. Thus, if, at all, there would have been intention of the Legislature to exclude application of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 it could have excluded it like Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, as referred in second proviso.

6. In the light of the aforesaid, both the tribunals below failed to give true interpretation of the provision of Section 18 of the Act of 2001, which, in fact, oust the jurisdiction of civil Court only.

7. It is lastly urged that order of eviction has been passed in ignorance of the provisions of Section 106 and 111(g) of Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Section 111(g) has been evoked by the respondents while issuing notice without its application. Learned Tribunal, ignoring the aforesaid, passed the order of eviction, which deserves to be set aside. To support his arguments, reference of the judgment in the case of "Gyaneshwar Bhati vs. Balu Ram & Ors. reported in 2009(2) DNJ (Raj.) 672 = 2009(2) RLW 1426 has been given, wherein, application under Section 18 of the Act of 2001 was held to be not maintainable.

8. No other argument has been raised by learned counsel for petitioners.

9. Learned counsel for respondents landlord, on the other hand, submits that petition under Section 18 of the Act of 2001 is maintainable in the present matter, since Chapter II and III of the Act of 2001 is not applicable. Provisions of Section 18 of the Act gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Rent Tribunal for adjudication of dispute between landlord and tenant and matters connected therewith the ancillary thereto. It also excludes jurisdiction of civil Court. In the background aforesaid, a clause of arbitration in the lease agreement cannot nullify the statutory provisions. Section 29 of the Act of 2001 gives overriding effect to any other law. In the aforesaid background, the clause for arbitration in the lease agreement cannot nullify the jurisdiction of Rent Tribunal under the Act of 2001. This

Click Here to Read the rest of this document