The court reaffirmed that the interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot undermine statutory tenant protections established by prior court decrees.

Context and Factual Background:

1. This is yet another templated Petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) seeking appointment of a Court Receiver to take possession of premises from “occupants” in connection with redevelopment of a building.

2. The catch is that some of the “occupants” sought to be removed under this jurisdiction are not only statutorily protected tenants under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (“Rent Act”) and its predecessor legislation the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (“Bombay Rent Act”), but they also have a decree in their favour, thanks to two concurrent findings of the relevant rent courts having jurisdiction.

3. The Petitioner, SJK Buildcon LLP (“Developer”) has executed a Development Agreement dated February 12, 2024 (“Development Agreement”) with Respondents No. 1 and 2, namely, Ms. Kusum Pandurang Keni and Mr. Ninad Ajay Keni (“Landlords”) to redevelop a building called Keni House. The Developer is also a recipient and beneficiary of a General Power of Attorney issued by the Landlords to act on their behalf. The arbitration agreement is contained in the Development Agreement, and there is no dispute or difference between the parties to the arbitration agreement.

4. The Original Respondent No. 3 was Mr. Umanath Saligram Mishra (“Mishra”), a tenant on whose demise, his legal heirs were made parties (“Protected Tenants”). Respondent No. 4, Mrs. Supriya Sengupta (“Sengupta”) is the eventual legal heir of the Late Mr. Sudhir Sengupta, the original tenant in respect of a flat in Keni House. The Protected Tenants and Sengupta are collectively labelled as “non-cooperating tenants/occupants” in the Petition. Keni House, built in 1962, is said to have 22 tenements, of which possession of 18 tenements are with tenants while four are in the possession of the Landlords. The Developer is an LLP and one of its partners is also said to be a tenant.

Protected Tenants are Decree-holders:

5. The Petition is eloquently silent about one vital fact. The Protected Tenants are not just protected tenants, they are also beneficiaries of a decree with two concurrent findings of the special rent courts holding that they are statutorily protected as tenants in respect of the premises they occupy as tenants. The Petition accuses the Protected Tenants of being illegal occupants undertaking the business of flour mill in the tenanted premises. The pleadings also they omit the fact that the two concurrent findings in favour of the Protected Tenants were left unchallenged by the Landlords (who support the Petition) and that the Landlords did not even pursue further legal challenges against the decree passed in favour of the Protected Tenants. This is a facet explicitly made known to the Developer by the lawyers of the Protected Tenants when the Developer called upon the Protected Tenants to vacate their premises. The correspondence is annexed to the Petition without any pleadings of these foundational facts.

6. RAD Suit No. 1980 of 2004 was decreed by the Small Causes Court by a judgement and decree dated October 20, 2012 (“First Judgement”) declaring Tenancy Rights in Ganesh Flour Mill in favour of the Original Respondent No. 3. The Landlords filed an appeal against the First Judgement by filing First Appeal No. 278 of 2014. By a judgement dated March 13, 2015 (“Appellate Judgement”), the Landlords’ appeal challenging the First Judgement was dismissed. The Appellate Judgement was not challenged and therefore the position of the Protected Tenants