Case: Himangni Enterprises Vs. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia

of the Arbitration Act, 1940 contending therein that since the "leave and license" agreement contained an arbitration clause for resolving all kinds of disputes arising between the parties in relation to the "leave and license" agreement and the disputes had arisen between the parties in relation to the "leave and license" agreement, such disputes could only be resolved by the arbitrator as agreed by the parties in the agreement. It was contended that the civil suit was, therefore, not maintainable and the disputes for which the suit has been filed be referred to the arbitrator for their adjudication. 21. This Court (Three Judge Bench) speaking through Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy rejected the application filed by the tenant under Section 8 of the Act and held, inter alia, that the civil suit filed by the landlord was maintainable. It was held that the disputes of such nature cannot be referred to the arbitrator. 22. This is what Their Lordships held as under: "24. In the light of the foregoing discussion and the authority of the precedents, we hold that both by reason of Section 28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 and by reason of the broader considerations of public policy mentioned by us earlier and also in Deccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Dalichand Jugraj Jain, the Court of Small Causes has and the arbitrator has not the jurisdiction to decide the question whether the respondent-licensor landlord is entitled to seek possession of the two Studios and other premises together with machinery and equipment from the appellant-licensee tenant. That this is the real dispute between the parties is abundantly clear from the petition filed by the respondents in the High Court of Bombay, under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act seeking a reference to Arbitration. The petition refers to the notices exchanged by the parties, the respondent calling upon the appellant to hand over possession of the Studios to him and the appellant claiming to be a tenant or protected licensee in respect of the Studios. The relationship between the parties being that of licensor-landlord and licensee tenant and the dispute between them relating to the possession of the licensed demised premises, there is no help from the conclusion that the Court of Small Causes alone has the jurisdiction and the arbitrator has none to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties." 23. Yet in another case of Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. (supra), this Court (two Judge Bench) speaking through R.V.Raveendran J. laid down the following proposition of law after examining the question as to which cases are arbitrable and which are non-arbitrable: "36. The well-recognised examples of non-arbitrable disputes are: (i) disputes relating to rights and liabilities which give rise to or arise out of criminal offences; (ii) matrimonial disputes relating to divorce, judicial separation, restitution of conjugal rights, child custody; (iii) guardianship matters; (iv) insolvency and winding-up matters; (v) testamentary matters (grant of probate, letters of administration and succession certificate); and (vi) eviction or tenancy matters governed by special statutes where the tenant enjoys statutory protection against eviction and only the specified courts are conferred jurisdiction to grant eviction or decide the disputes." (emphasis supplied) 24. Keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in aforementioned two decisions and applying the same to the facts of this case, we have no hesitation to hold that both the Courts below were right in dismissing the appellants application filed under Section 8 of the Act and thereby were justified in holding that the civil suit filed by the respondent was maintainable for grant of reliefs claimed in the plaint despite parties agreeing to get the disputes arising therefrom to be decided by the arbitrator. 25. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, argued that the provisions of the Delhi Rent Act,1955 are not applicable to the premises by virtue of Section 3(c) of the Act and hence the law laid down in the aforementioned two cases would not apply. We do not agree. 26. The Delhi Rent Act, which deals with the cases relating to rent and eviction of the premises, is a special Act. Though it contains a provision (Section 3) by virtue of it, the provisions of the Act do not apply to certain premises but that does not mean that the Arbitration Act, ipso facto, would be applicable to such premises conferring jurisdiction on the arbitrator to decide the eviction/rent disputes. In such a situation, the rights of the parties and the demised premises would be governed by the Transfer of Property Act and the civil suit would be triable by the Civil Court and not by the arbitrator. In other words, though by virtue of Section 3 of the Act, the provisions of the Act are not applicable to certain premises but no sooner the exemption is withdrawn or ceased to have its application to a particular premises, the Act becomes applicable to such premises. In this view of the matter, it cannot be contended that the provisions of the Arbitration Act would, therefore, apply to such premises.27. We have gone through the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of her contention. Having gone through the same, we are of the considered opinion that firstly, some decisions are rendered by the High Court; Secondly, remaining decisions are distinguishable on facts and lastly, in the light of two authoritative decisions of this Court, which are directly on the point and continue to hold the field, no reliance can be placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on any decision of the High Court. Indeed, any such decision of the High Court, which has taken view contrary to the view of this Court, the same stands overruled. Such is the case here.28. We, therefore, need not deal with any other submissions of learned counsel for the appellant which, in our opinion, really do not arise in the light of what we have held supra.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]17. Having heard learned senior counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in the appeal.18. In our considered opinion, the question involved in the appeal remains no longer res integra and stands answered by two decisions of this Court in Natraj Studios (P) Ltd. v. Navrang Studios & Another, 1981(1) R.C.R.(Rent) 350 : 1981(1) SCC 523 and Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd. & Ors., (2011) 5 SCC 532  against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.Keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in aforementioned two decisions and applying the same to the facts of this case, we have no hesitation to hold that both the Courts below were right in dismissing the appellants application filed under Section 8 of the Act and thereby were justified in holding that the civil suit filed by the respondent was maintainable for grant of reliefs claimed in the plaint despite parties agreeing to get the disputes arising therefrom to be decided by the arbitrator.The Delhi Rent Act, which deals with the cases relating to rent and eviction of the premises, is a special Act. Though it contains a provision (Section 3) by virtue of it, the provisions of the Act do not apply to certain premises but that does not mean that the Arbitration Act, ipso facto, would be applicable to such premises conferring jurisdiction on the arbitrator to decide the eviction/rent disputes. In such a situation, the rights of the parties and the demised premises would be governed by the Transfer of Property Act and the civil suit would be triable by the Civil Court and not by the arbitrator. In other words, though by virtue of Section 3 of the Act, the provisions of the Act are not applicable to certain premises but no sooner the exemption is withdrawn or ceased to have its application to a particular premises, the Act becomes applicable to such premises. In this view of the matter, it cannot be contended that the provisions of the Arbitration Act would, therefore, apply to such premises.27. We have gone through the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of her contention. Having gone through the same, we are of the considered opinion that firstly, some decisions are rendered by the High Court; Secondly, remaining decisions are distinguishable on facts and lastly, in the light of two authoritative decisions of this Court, which are directly on the point and continue to hold the field, no reliance can be placed by the learned counsel for the appellant on any decision of the High Court. Indeed, any such decision of the High Court, which has taken view contrary to the view of this Court, the same stands overruled. Such is the case here.28. We, therefore, need not deal with any other submissions of learned counsel for the appellant which, in our opinion, really do not arise in the light of what we have helddo not agree.