D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

( 1 ) AN Arbitration Petition in which the Appellant sought relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, has been dismissed by Mr. Justice D. K. Deshmukh on the ground that since the dispute between the parties arises out of an agreement of leave and licence, the Presidency Small Causes Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter under Section 41 of the presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. The Learned Single judge has, in taking this view, relied upon his judgment dated 22nd august 2005 in Siemens Ltd. vs. Captech Online Pvt. Ltd. , Arbitration Petition No. 99 of 2004

( 2 ) THE Appellant in the Arbitration Petition, out of which these proceedings arise, sought the following reliefs:- (i) A direction to the Respondent to hand over possession of the premises situated on the Second Floor of a building known as khatau House, Plot No. 410/411, New Udyog Mandir Compound, mogul Lane, Mahim, Mumbai-400 016; (ii) In the alternative, appointment of a Receiver in respect of the premises with a direction to collect compensation at the rate of Rs. 35,000/- per day from the respondent or any occupant for payment to the Appellant; and (iii) A direction to the Respondent to deposit an amount of Rs. 71,46,150/-as security towards the claim of the Appellant in arbitration.

( 3 ) BY a leave and licence agreement, the Appellant agreed to permit the Respondent, use and occupation of the premises in dispute for a period of nine years from 10th March 1997 until 9th March 2006. An arbitration clause is contained in the leave and licence agreement. A service agreement and a deposit agreement were also entered into between the parties and the Respondent is stated to have deposited an interest free amount of Rs. 2 crores with the appellant. In pursuance of the licence granted by the Appellant, the respondent is alleged to have inducted a sub-licensee. Disputes have arisen between the parties and there was an exchange of correspondence to which a reference has been made in the arbitration Petition. The Appellant claims to have terminated the leave and licence agreement by a notice of termination. The arbitration Petition contains an averment to the effect that the respondent has instituted a declaratory suit in the Court of Small causes claiming tenancy rights in the premises.

( 4 ) THE Learned Single Judge while dismissing the Arbitration petition relied upon on his judgment in Siemens Ltd. (supra) which was decided on 22nd August 2005. The Learned Judge while holding that an Arbitration Petition is not maintainable, relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Natraj Studio (P) Ltd. vs. Navrang Studio, AIR 1981 SC 537 and concluded that under the provisions of Section 41 of the presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, the exclusive jurisdiction to entertain a suit between a licensor and licensee for the recovery of possession and for the recovery of licence fee was conferred on the court of Small Causes. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court was held to be barred by necessary implication.

( 5 ) ON behalf of the Appellant, the submission that has been urged is that the judgment of the Learned Single Judge overlooks the consequence of the deletion of the non-obstante provision in Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 by Maharashtra act 24 of 1984. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Natraj Studio (supra), it was submitted, was founded on the non-obstante provision contained in Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging house Rates Control Act, 1947.

( 6 ) IN order to appreciate the submission, it would be necessary to advert to the provisions of Section 41 of the Presidency small Cause Courts Act, 1882 which are as follows :

"41. Suits or Proceedings between licensors and licensees or landlords and tenants for recovery of possession of immovable property and licence fees or rent, except to those to which other Acts apply to lie in Small Cause Court.- (1) Notwithstan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document