A Civil Court can issue interim injunctions despite an arbitration clause, ensuring due process is followed before evictions, while arbitration remains a valid method to resolve disputes.

ORDER :

R. SAKTHIVEL, J.

This Civil Revision Petition is filed praying to set aside the Order dated July 18, 2022 passed in Interlocutory Application filed under Section 8 of 'the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996' ('A&C Act' for short) in I.A. No.1403 of 2021 in O.S. No.2465 of 2021 on the file of 'the Principal District Munsif at Puducherry' [hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court'] by the Petitioners therein.

2.The Petitioners herein are the Defendants and the Respondent herein is the Plaintiff in the Original Suit.

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

4.The case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendants executed the Lease Agreement dated December 12, 2018 in favour of the Plaintiff for a lease of the demised property therein for a period of nine years. The demised property therein is the Suit Property. The Defendants attempted to interfere with the Plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the demised property and hence, the Plaintiff filed a Suit for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment except by due process of law. After receiving the summons, the Defendants entered appearance through an Advocate and filed a petition under Section 8 of the A&C Act, stating that there is a valid Arbitration clause existing between the Plaintiff and the Defendants vide the Lease Agreement dated December 12, 2018 and prayed the Trial Court to refer the dispute to Arbitration.

5.The Trial Court after hearing both sides' found that there existed a valid Arbitration clause in the Lease Agreement entered between the Plaintiff and the Defendants and that the dispute is arbitral in nature. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and further, the Defendants were directed not to interrupt the power supply, way, lift and parking facilities as these are essential to run the business. Further directed not to print pamphlets regarding the Plaintiff's business concern. The Operative portion of the Trial Court's Order reads thus:

“16.In the result, this petition is allowed by referring the matter to arbitration to resolve the disputes within six months with condition that the petitioners/defendants should not interrupt the power supply, way, lift and parking facilities and not to print pamphlets regarding respondent's business concern. No cost.”

6.Feeling aggrieved by the Order, the Defendants have come up with this Civil Revision Petition.

7.Despite service of notice, the Respondent did not appear and contest the case.

8.Ms.M.Jisriga learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.V.Kamala Kumar, Counsel on record for the Revision Petitioners / Petitioners / Defendants submitted that there existed a valid Arbitration Clause between the parties and the dispute is arbitral in nature, and considering the same, the Trial Court rightly referred the matter to Arbitration. However, while referring the matter, the Court has no power to order or grant a limited interim order or limited interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff. The Trial Court ought not to have issued the limited interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff. Hence, the Order under challenge was passed without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside.

9.This Court has heard the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners and perused the materials available on record.

10.On perusal of the typed set of papers, it is learnt that the Petitioners have annexed a petition filed under Section 10(2)(i) of 'the Pondicherry Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1969' ('Rent Control Act' for short) by the 1st Defendant seeking a direction to vacate the Plaintiff. After peru