The main legal point established in the judgment is that the expiration of the lease agreement and the cessation of the jural relationship between the parties rendered the arbitration agreement unnecessary, and the matter did not warrant arbitration.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order dated 10.03.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.6842 of 2021 on the file of XXIV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.)

1. This Civil Revision Petition has been preferred to set aside the order dated 10.03.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in O.S.No.6842 of 2021 on the file of XXIV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. Heard Mr.J.Ravikumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.Kannan, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

3. The short facts of the case are as follows:

The revision petitioners are the defendants against whom the respondent / plaintiff has filed a suit for ejectment. The revision petitioners filed a petition under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in order to refer the parties to arbitration as per Clause 31 of the terms of the lease agreement dated 01.10.2008 and to dismiss the suit as not maintainable. The said petition was dismissed. Aggrieved over that, the defendants have preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already held in the case of Suresh Shah Vs. Hipad Technology India Private Limited reported in (2021) 1 SCC 529 that the disputes between the lessor and lessee under the Transfer of Property Act are very much arbitrable and that it has to be referred to arbitration, if there is a valid arbitration agreement; in the above judgment reference was made about Booz Allen and hamilton Inc Vs. SBI Home Finance Limited and Others and Vidya Drolia and Others Vs. Durga Trading Corporation; since the arbitration clause is an independent or separate clause from the main agreement, even if the lease has lapsed by efflux of time or terminated or declared as void, the arbitration clause can still be enforced.

4.1. Reliance was also placed on Reva Electric Car Company P.Ltd. Vs. Green Mobil; in the said case, it is held that an arbitration clause which forms part of the contract shall be treated as an agreement independent of the other terms of the contract and a decision by the Arbitral Tribunal that the contract is null and void shall not entail ipso jure the invalidity of the arbitration clause; as per Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the arbitration clause is an independent agreement by itself and hence even if the main agreement has lapsed due to efflux of time, the arbitration clause would survive; when the disputes have arisen between the parties in respect of the subject matter of the main agreement, the dispute needs to be referred to arbitration; the revision petitioners / defendants have filed a petition at the very first instance itself before filing the written statement; the arbitration clause 31 of the lease and maintenance agreement dated 01.10.2008, is binding on both parties and the plaintiff has to be referred to arbitration and the suit is not maintainable.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent is the owner of the suit property and the petitioners/defendants are the tenants; as per the lease and maintenance agreement dated 01.10.2008, the lease period was effected from 01.10.2008 to 31.09.2018; so the lease period is for 10 years; after expiry of lease on 31.09.2018, as per the request of the second defendant, it was extended upto 31.12.2018 and thereafter also the defendants did not vacate the property and that has caused legal notice to be sent by the respondent; the defendants did not send any reply; therefore, a suit has been filed by the plaintiff.

5.1. The lease agreement is not arbitrable and the tenancy matters are governed by the special statutes where the tenants enjoy statutory protection against eviction; it is held in Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. Vs. SBI Home Finance Limited and Others reported in 2011 (5) SCC 532 that there are certain non-arbitrable disputes as