Eviction matters cannot be referred to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act if statutory protections apply.

JUDGMENT

This Original Petition is filed against Ext. P5 order passed by the I Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, whereby an application filed by the respondent herein under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was allowed, by referring the subject matter of the dispute to arbitration.

2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the said suit. He filed the suit seeking to restrain the respondent from forcibly evicting him from the quarters building leased out by the respondent.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court had earlier, in OP(C) No. 3067/2016, considered a similar order passed by the Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, in I.A. No. 4015/2016 in O.S. No. 106/2006, and by order dated 2.12.2016, this Court set aside the order passed by the Munsiff Court under Section 8 of the Act, holding that matters which are not within the purview of arbitration cannot be referred to an Arbitral Tribunal.

The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:

“2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.106/2016 on the file of the Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam. The suit was filed by the petitioner seeking a relief of injunction. He filed the suit covered by Ext.P1 in this case for an injunction restraining the defendant from forcibly evicting him from the plaint schedule building or from demanding enhanced rent other than the rent fixed by Ext.P3 agreement dated 26.10.2015 for fair rent to be fixed by the competent court or disbursing or disconnecting the amenities including electricity water etc., to the plaint schedule property.

3. The respondent entered appearance and filed Ext.P4 application under Section 8 (2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , challenging the maintainability of the suit before the civil court in view of clause (4) in the lease agreement as I.A.4015/2016 in O.S.106/2016 and Ext.P5 objection to the same was filed by the petitioner, stating that the arbitration clause is not applicable to the proceedings. But the court below by Ext.P6 order allowed the application holding that the substantial question to be considered is legality of agreement and collection of rent and not the eviction proceedings alone and the matter is arbitrable one and closed the suits. This was challenged by the petitioner by filing this application.

4. Heard Sri.Dr.V.N.Sankarjee counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.K.M. Jamaludheen, Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.

5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are two reliefs claimed in the petition one against forceful eviction and other collection of rent other than the rent mentioned in the agreement unless the rent fixed payable by the competent authority. As regards the eviction is concerned, it is not a arbitrable issue and it cannot be gone into by the Arbitral Tribunal as has been held in the decision reported in[ Booz Allen and Hamilton INC V. SBI Home Finance Ltd., and Others ( AIR 2011 SC 2507 )]. The court below was not justified in allowing the application as such and the court below ought to have held that, the suit is maintainable as against the main relief of forceful eviction.

6. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent submitted that, he filed an affidavit stating that the respondent has no intention to forcefully evict him and the question regarding what is the rate of rent payable can be decided by the Arbitrator and he is not paying rent, even the agreed rent, for a long period which submission has been denied by the counsel for the petitioner.

7. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner in this case has taken the Government quarters belonging to the respond