The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Rent Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide eviction applications under the Act of 2001, despite the existence of an arbitration clause in the lease deed.

JUDGMENT

1. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assails the legality and validity of the judgement dated 05.08.2022 passed by learned Appellate Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan-I dismissing the Civil First Appeal No.81/2019 preferred by the petitioner/non-applicant/tenant (for brevity, "the tenant") against the final order dated 03.04.2019 passed by learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur Metropolitan (Senior Civil Judge No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan) allowing the Original Application No.256/2017 filed by the respondent/applicant/landlord (for brevity, "the landlord") seeking eviction of the tenant from the suit premises.

2. The relevant facts in brief are that the landlord filed an application under Sections 9 and 18 read with Section 21 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for brevity, "the Act of 2001") seeking eviction of the tenant from the suit premises comprising of Office Nos.704, 705 & 706 in Kailash Tower, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur on the ground of default in payment of rent. In its reply, the tenant raised an objection inter alia as to maintainability of the Original Application before the learned Rent Tribunal in view of existence of an arbitration clause in the lease deed dated 21.06.2014 executed between the parties.

3. After recording evidence of the respective parties, the learned Rent Tribunal, vide its final order dated 03.04.2019 allowed the Original Application and issued recovery certificate in favour of the landlord which was unsuccessfully challenged by the tenant by way of an appeal which has been dismissed by the learned Appellate Rent Tribunal vide its judgement dated 05.08.2022.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner made three-fold submissions assailing the judgement dated 05.08.2022; non- maintainability of the Original Application filed by the landlord before the learned Rent Tribunal in view of existence of an arbitration clause in lease deed dated 21.06.2014 as also on account of non-service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for brevity, "the Act of 1882") and direction to pay mesne profit @ three times of the agreed rent from the date of final order being illegal.

5. Elaborating his submission, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, referring to and relying upon the judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of (i) Park Street Properties (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Dipak Kumar Singh & Ors.: AIR 2016 SC 4038, (ii) Anthony v. K.C. Ittoop and Sons & Ors.: (2000) 6 SCC 394,(iii) N.N. Global Mercantile Private Limited v. Indo Unique Flame Limited & Ors.: (2021) 4 SCC 379, (iv) A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam & Ors.: (2016) 10 SCC 386, (v) Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. & Ors.: (2011) 5 SCC 532 & (vi) Vidya Drolia & Ors. v. Durga Trading Corporation and other connected matters: (2021) 2 SCC 1 and a judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Tejswi Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. R-Tech Promoters Pvt. Ltd.: MANU/DE/1442/021, would submit that even if the lease deed is held to be inadmissible in evidence being unregistered, in view of the arbitration clause in it, which was severable from rest of the conditions of the lease deed, existence of which, even otherwise also, was admitted by the landlord in his notice dated 15.04.2015, the issue of eviction based on default in payment of rent could not have been decided by the learned Rent Tribunal and the matter ought to have been referred to the arbitrator.

6. Inviting attention of this Court towards the provisions of Sections 106 and 107 of the Act of 1882, Shri Mathur submits that even if it is assumed that the lease deed between the parties was on month to month basis and not on yearly basis as it was unregistered, still the landlord was required to serve a notice upon it under Section 106 before seeking eviction in absence whereof, the eviction petition was not maintainable.

7. Referring to the provisions of Sections 12(4), 15(7) and 20(3) of the Act of 2001, learned Senior Counsel sub