Civil Revision No. 6007 of 2011 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 6007 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 29th,2011 M/s V.S.Enterprizes .... Petitioner Versus B.R.Sharma .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK Present Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate, for the petitioner. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. This is a revision petition brought by the defendant under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 24.8.2011 (Annexure P1) passed by Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gurgaon, whereby the application of the petitioner-defendant under section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been rejected. It is a case where the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for possession by way of ejectment as also seeking relief of permanent injunction as a consequence thereof. Facing this suit, the defendant-petitioner filed an application under the aforesaid provisions for referring the matter to arbitration for proper adjudication of the matter as per the terms of the lease agreement dated 6.9.2004 (Annexure P2). Civil Revision No. 6007 of 2011 2 .. The defendant-petitioner claimed in his application that the plaintiff-respondent has filed a false and frivolous suit concealing material facts from the court. According to him, he has been accepting rent after filing of the present case also. It is further averred that the plaintiff has relied upon the lease deed dated 6.9.2004, which was signed between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the suit property as per clause 12 of which, the dispute between the parties regarding the said lease deed had to be referred to arbitration. It is claimed that the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit is, therefore, barred. The application was opposed claiming that the lease agreement dated 6.9.2004 was for a period of three years and the said period had expired on 5.9.2007. It is further averred that the lease has not been renewed thereafter and the plaintiff has sought vacant possession of the premises. He has also claimed that he has served a legal notice to the defendant-petitioner dated 10.4.2008 terminating the tenancy. Alleging that the lease agreement was, not in force on the date of filing of the suit, therefore, clause 12 of the agreement regarding arbitration would not come into operation. Hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned trial court dismissed the application vide the impugned order. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the defendant has brought this revision. I have heard Shri Kunal Dawar, learned counsel for the Civil Revision No. 6007 of 2011 3 .. petitioner and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken me through clause 12 of the lease agreement dated 6.9.2004 which is captioned as “INTERPRETATION CLAUSE”. According to this clause, in case of any dispute, difference between the parties with regard to any matter, including interpretation of this agreement and the clarifications thereof, the same has to be referred to the arbitrator as appointed by the lessor and the decision of the arbitrator was to be final and binding between the parties, that could not be questioned in any court of law. He has submitted that though the term of the lease agreement has expired, yet dispute arising under the lease agreement could well be referred to the arbitration. He has drawn my attention to various judgment on this point to support his submission. They are reported as Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited Vs. Prem Chand 2001(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 710, M/s Regent Automobilies Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Limited and others, 2008(3) R.C.R. (Civil) 752 and Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. and another Vs. Jasbir Singh @ Jasveer Singh 2009 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 525. He has submitted that in all these cases, it has been held that even after termination of the contract, the arbitration clause remained effective and the dispute between the parties were required to be referred to arbitration. Learned counsel has further submitted that though the Civil Revision No. 6007 of 2011 4 .. plaintiff has served the defendant with a notice terminating his tenancy, yet he has received rent thereafter and, thus, tenancy would be deemed to be continuing. In support of this submission, he has cited before me a decision of Hon`ble Allahabad High Court in Ram Dayal Vs. Jawala Prasad AIR 166 Allahabad 623 (Vol.53, C.172). Clause 2 of the lease agreement is to the following effect:- “TERM The Lease, initially, shall be for a period of 3 years, unless terminated prior to such date pursuant to any provisions hereof with a initial lock-in-period of 6 months.” The lease under the aforesaid clause was initially to be for a period of 3 years. It could be terminated earlier but not within six months of the commencement. There is no provision for its extension in this agreement. The lease agreement dated 6.9.2004 has expired on 5.9.2007. There is moreover, no agreement between the parties extending the term of the lease, although not provided for in the agreement. The occupation of the tenant over the demised premises after the expiry of this lease agreement is not under this agreement. He is a tenant over the premises under the law, which protects his possession. In the reported cases, the agreements containing the arbitration clause were of different kind. In Bharat Petroleum Civil Revision No. 6007 of 2011 5 .. Corporation Limited's case (supra), the agreement was regarding the retail outlet of the petroleum products. Similarly in M/s Regent Automobilies's case (supra), it was a case of gas outlet under company owned company operated agreement. In Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd.'s case (supra) it was a loan agreement. The rights and liabilities persisted under such agreements even after termination of the agreement. Here, the lease agreement has expired by efflux of time and the dispute between the parties is not covered by the lease agreement. The landlord is seeking ejectment of the tenant and the said dispute is not covered by the agreement. Therefore, the arbitration clause in the lease agreement does not cover this dispute and learned trial court has been fully justified in declining to refer the dispute between the parties to the arbitration. The decision in Ram Dayal's case (supra) cannot come to the help of the petitioner in any way on the facts of this case. The landlord is not seeking ejectment of the petitioner treating him as trespasser. If the landlord has received any rent after institution of the suit, the consequence would be considered and adjudicated upon by the trial court. In these cir+cumstances, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petitioner is, therefore, dismissed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE September 29th , 2011 som