The expiration of a tenancy agreement terminates the enforcement of its arbitration clause, allowing the landlord to maintain a suit for eviction.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

1. Heard Shri Ishir Sripat, learned Advocate appearing for revision applicant and Shri Nipun Singh, learned Advocate assisted by Shri Naman Agarwal, learned counsel for opposite party.

2. A very short question arises for consideration of this Court in this revision application filed by the tenant petitioner, as to whether a small cause suit instituted for ejectment was maintainable in the face of the fact that tenancy agreement between the parties has been result of a written agreement entered on 27.08.2016 giving effect for a period of eleven months to run from 01.09.2016 to 31.07.2017 and which contained an arbitration clause vide clause 11 providing for arbitration between the parties in the event of any dispute arising out of the agreement of tenancy.

3. Facts are, since the tenancy was to end on 31.07.2017, the landlord first issued a notice on 01.05.2017 asking the tenant petitioner to vacate the premises in question on or before 15.07.2017 and handover the keys to the landlord. However, this notice was subsequently superseded by another notice dated 13.05.2017 asking the tenant petitioner to vacate the tenanted premises on 31.07.2017 i.e. the date on which the tenancy was to come to an end as per the agreement. Since the petitioner tenant raised dispute by giving reply on 29.07.2017 to the effect that there was an understanding reached between the parties that the agreement though orally was to last for ten years but in writing it was only for eleven months subject to renewal, the very notice to vacate the tenanted premises in question and handover the keys was untaneable. As the tenant-petitioner did not vacate the premises, SCC suit was brought in by the landlord respondent.

4. Petitioner raised preliminary objection by filing application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC as to the maintainability of the suit by raising legal point that in view of arbitration clause provided under the agreement of tenancy the matter may be referred for arbitration instead of suit proceedings and therefore, respondent-landlord was liable to be non-suited.

5. The matter was contested by the landlord respondent on the said point taking the plea that the very contract between the parties came to an end on 31.07.2017 and since the suit got instituted subsequently, with the end of contact the landlord had every right to sue him for not vacating the premises in question.

6. The trial judge framed the point as to the scope and applicability of the clause 11 of the agreement while considering the application filed under order 7 Rule 11 CPC and it was held that since the contract itself came to an end on 31.07.2017, the terms prescribed therein were not liable to be invoked and hence, there was no point in referring the matter for arbitration and suit was thus, held maintainable.

7. Shri Shripat, learned Advocate appearing for revision applicant while assailing the order has taken the Court to various clauses of the agreement more especially to Clauses 3,5,7,11 and 13. For better appreciation of the terms of agreement so as to take a holistic view in the matter as to maintainability of the suit in the face of the terms out of which the tenancy arose the same are reproduced hereunder:

"3. That the lease is for a period of 11 months w.e.f. 01/09/2016 TO 31/07/2017.

5. That the after expiry of 11 months period the rent shall be increased by 10% and the tenancy has been continued subject to mutual consent of the both parties.

7. That the lessee & lessor can vacate the premises, it they so desire after giving one month notice in written. That no additions and alterations will be