Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 2342
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Nirmaljit Kaur, J.
Amritsar Health And Hospitality Services - Appellant
Versus
Jatinder Singh And Others - Respondent
CR No. 2357of2015
Decided On : 25-07-2019
Mr. Samrath Sagar, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Prateek Sodhi, Advocate, for the Respondent
Certain disputes, such as eviction matters governed by special statutes, are non-arbitrable.
Headnote:
Arbitration Agreement - Lease Dispute - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 8 - 25
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-company filed a revision petition against the dismissal of its application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The dispute arose from a lease agreement between the petitioner-company and the respondents, the landlords.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute before the Arbitrator concerned the rights and obligations under the lease agreement, while the civil suit filed by the landlords for eviction was maintainable despite the arbitration agreement.
Issues: The issues involved the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to adjudicate the matter, the acceptance of the arbitration clause by the respondents, and the maintainability of the civil suit for eviction despite the arbitration agreement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the civil suit for eviction was maintainable despite the arbitration agreement, citing the precedent that certain disputes, such as eviction matters governed by special statutes, are non-arbitrable.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed as the court found it devoid of merit.
JUDGMENT
Nirmaljit Kaur. J. (Oral) - The present revision petition is filed by the petitioner-company against the order dated 24.2.2015, vide which, application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act ), filed by the petitioner-company was dismissed.
2. While praying for allowing the present petition and seeking setting aside of the order dated 24.2.2015, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Arbitrator had been appointed to adjudicate all the dispute arising out of the lease deed between the parties and that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter between them.
3. As per the relevant facts of the case, respondents No.1 to 4, who are the landlord of the property in question had entered into an agreement on 21.6.2013 with the petitioner-company for leasing out the property in question @ Rs. 5,50,000/- per month. After working out the modality, the sale deeds dated 5.9.2013 and 3.2.2014 were executed. As per Clause 25 of the sale deed dated 5.9.2013, disputes arising out the said sale deed, would be referred to the Arbitrator. Clause 25 of the sale deed dated 5.9.2013 reads as under 25. That in the event of any dispute or differences arising out of or in connection with the interpretation or implementation of this agreement, or out of or in connection with the breach, or alleged breach of this agreement, such dispute shall be referred to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996."
4. The dispute arose between the parties towards the payment of rent as also regarding duties arising out under the lease agreement and their respective entitlement. After various efforts for appointment of the Arbitrator, finally an Arbitrator came to be appointed by the High Court vide order dated 16.1.2015.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Rent Controller has erred in failing to appreciate that as per the Section 5 read with Section 8 of the Act, all the judicial authorities are barred from entertaining any disputes, which are subject matters of an arbitration agreement. A perusal of these provisions leads to the legal conclusion that all judicial authorities are under a mandatory statutory obligation to refer the parties to arbitration, in case they find that the disputes before them are governed by an existing arbitration agreement. In the present case the petitioner-firm had clearly and specifically raised the issue of there being an arbitration agreement between the parties, governing the disputes, which already stood invoked and relevant proceedings under Section 11(6) of the Act are already pending before the Court. Therefore, the only course left with the Rent Controller was to dismiss the petition of the respondents and direct them to raise their grievance before the Court where the application under Section 11(6) of the Act is pending.
6. It was further argued that the claim of the respondents was qua the payment of rent from March 2014 to September 2014. It has already been settled qua the months of March, April and May 2014 and the respondents has already filed a separate petition qua the months from June 2014 to September 2014. The respondents have participated in the arbitration proceedings, therefore, they are accepting the arbitration Clause. Hence, they cannot take recourse to two separate remedies qua the same dispute.
7. Reliance was placed Vidya Drolia and others vs. Durga Trading Corporation, (2019) 2 RCR (Civil) 542 to contend that the issue involved is a subject matter before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the same has been referred to the Larger Bench.
8. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length.
9. The arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner have no merit in the facts of the present case. The dispute before the Arbitrator is with respect to the right of obligation under the agreement and an issue of compensation raised by the petitioner-firm towards the expenditure incurred on ac
