HIMANGNI ENTERPRISES versus KAMALJEET SINGH AHLUWALIA

Citation: [2017] 10 S.C.R. 139 · Decided: 12-10-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 10 S.C.R. 139 
HIMANGNI ENTERPRISES 
v. 
KAMALJEET SINGH AHLUWALIA 
(Civi!Appea!No.16850of2017) 
OCTOBER 12, 2017 
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.J 
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: 
A 
B 
s.8 - Application under - Jn a pending suit for eviction of 
premises in question leased out to the defendant - Defendant's 
C 
application u/s. 8 rejected by courts below - On appeal, held: The 
issue i.e. eviction and tenancy since governed by special statute, is 
not arbitrable - Therefore, application u/s. 8 was rightly rejected 
and suit filed by the landlord was nwintainable - Even to the premises. 
to which the Rent Act is not applicable, Arbitration Act is not . D 
applicable - Delhi Rent Act, I 955 - s.3. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 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 
E 
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. [Para 
22] [145-C] 
1.2 Eviction or tenancy matters governed by special statutes 
F 
where the tenant enjoys statutory protection a'gainst eviction and 
only the specified courts are· conferred jurisdiction to grant 
eviction -or decide the disputes, are non-arbitrable disputes. [Para 
23] [145-F-G] 
1.3 The Courts below were right in dismissing the G 
appellant's application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration 
and Conciliation Act, 1996 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 
H 
139 
140 
SUPREME C(\(JRT REPORTS 
[20 I 7] IO S.C.R. 
A 
get the disputes arising therefrom to be decided by the arbitrator. 
[Para 24] [145-G-H; 146-A-B] 
Natraj Studios ( P) Ltd. v. Navrang Studios & Another, 
1981(1) SCC 523 : [1981] 2 SCR 466; Booz Allen & 
Hamilton Inc. v. SB! Home Finance Ltd. & Ors. (2011) 
B 
5 SCC 532 : [2011] 7 SCR 310 - relied on. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Reva Electric Car Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Green Mobil 
(2012) 2 SCC 93 : [2011] 13 SCR 359; Harishchandra 
Hegde v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2004) 9 SCC 
780 : [2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 1111 - distinguished. 
Anjuman Taraqqi Urdu (Hind) 11. Vardhaman Yarns & 
Threads Ltd. ILR (2012) II Delhi 770; Mis Lovely 
Obsessions Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon v. Mis Sahara India 
Commercial Corp. Ltd. Gurgaon (2012) SCC Online 
P&H 11449; Khadi & Village Industries Commission v. 
Saraswati Ramkrishna Dalmia & Ors. (2013) 3 Mh.L..J. 
250 - not approved. 
2. The Delhi Rent Act, 1955 which deals tvith the cases 
relating to rent and eviction of the premises, is a special Act. 
Though it contains a provision (Section 3) hy virtue of it, the 
provisions of the Rent Act do not apply to certain premises but 
that docs not mean that the Arbitration Act, ipso facto, would be 
applicable to such premises conferring jurisdiction on the 
arbitrator to decide the cvidion/rcnt disputes. Jn 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 nut by the arbitrator. In other 
words, though b) virtue of Section 3·or the Rent Act, the provisions 
of the Rent Act arc 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 
G tu 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. [Para 26] [146-C-E] 
Case Law Reference 
ILR (2012) II Delhi 770 
not approved 
Para 15 
H (2012) SCC Online P&H 11449 
not approved 
I'ara 15 
HIMANGNI ENTERPRISES v. KAMALJEET SINGH 
141 
AHLUWALIA 
(2013) 3 Mh.L.J. 250 
not approved 
Para 15 
[2011] 13 SCR 359 
distinguished 
Para 15 
[2003] 6 Suppl. SCR 1111 
distinguished 
Para 15 
[1981] 2 SCR 466 
relied on 
Para 18 
[2011] 7 SCR 310 
relied on 
Para 18 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.16850 
of2017. 
From the fina!Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2016 passed by 
the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in FAO No.344 of 2016. 
A 
B 
Geeta Luthra, Sr. Adv., Ms.Supriya Juneja, Ms.Shivani Lohia, 
C 
Altamish, Bharat Monga, Ad vs. for the Appellant. 
Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Adv., Pret;t Pal Singh, Palas

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.