NATIONAL SAMPLE SURVEY ORGANISATION & ANR versus CHAMPA PROPERTIES LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 10 S.C.R. 429 · Decided: 07-07-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 10 S.C.R. 429 
NATIONAL SAMPLE SURVEY ORGANISATION & ANR. 
v. 
CHAMPA PROPERTIES LTD. & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4153 of 2009) 
JULY 7, 2009 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] 
RENT AND EVICTION: 
A 
B 
WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT, 1956: 
C 
Lease agreements providing for settlement of disputes 
by arbitration - Instead Writ Petition filed - Maintainability of 
Writ Petition - Held: Maintainable since the arbitration clauses 
" 
did not cover or govern the issues raised in the Writ Petition 
- Recommendations of the Hiring Committee - Neither D 
binding on the Hiring Department nor on the lessors - Orders 
of Single Judge and Division Bench set aside - Respondent 
to refund the amounts in excess of agreed rent to the appellant 
within 3 months. 
E 
Appellant was a tenant under Respondent and 
vacated the premises in 1992 for the reasons that the 
premises was old and lacking in amenities and the 
Respondent not willing to carry out repairs/ 
improvements and yet demanding higher rent, which the 
F 
appellant was not willing to pay. The Respondent went 
on representing for revision of rent from 1988. The 
appellant was not agreeable for revision of rent 
recommended by the Hiring Committee. Meanwhile the 
respondent filed a writ petition and the Single Judge G 
directed the appellant to pay rent in accordance with the 
recommendations of the Hiring Committee. On appeal, 
Division issued certain directions including payment of 
50% arrears and reconsideration by the Hiring Committee 
429 
H 
430 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 10 S.C.R. 
A of its recommendations in the light of the observations 
of the High Court in Rabindra Nath Nandi. In appeal to this 
Court, on the basis of the contentions raised by the 
parties, the following question arose for consideration: 
B 
c 
D 
E 
(i) 
Whether the writ petition by the respondent 
was not maintainable, in view of clause 17 of 
the lease agreements dated 11.4.1989, 
10.5.1990 and 29.4.1991 providing for 
settlement of disputes by arbitration ? 
(ii) 
Whether the recommendation by the Hiring 
Committee was binding on the appellant and 
whether the respondent-landlord could 
enforce payment of the rent recommended by 
the Hiring Committee ? 
(iii) 
Whether the directions issued by the High 
Court in the impugned order dated 31.8.2006 
are warranted or justified ? 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. A careful reading of the arbitration clause 
in the lease agreements discloses that what is referable 
to arbitration, is any dispute or difference concerning the 
subject matter of said three lease agreements or any 
F clauses thereof or any matter arising out of the said lease 
agreements. But the writ petition was not in respect of 
any of the said three lease agreements or any term 
thereof. The relief sought in the writ petition did not relate 
to, nor arise from the contract of lease (the three lease 
G agreements containing the arbitration agreement) but 
allegedly arose out of the O.M. dated 13.6.1985 and 
related official memoranda issued by the Government of 
India. The subject matter of those official memoranda was 
not subject to any provision for arbitration. The arbitration 
H 
• 
NATIONAL SAMPLE SURVEY ORGANISATION v. 
431 
CHAMPA PROPERTIES LTD. 
clauses in the lease agreements dated 11.4.1989, A 
.... 
10.5.1990 and 29.4.1991, therefore, did not cover or 
govern the issue raised in the writ petition. Therefore the 
arbitration clause in the three lease agreements would not 
come in the way of the writ petition being entertained. 
[Para 11] [440-D-E; 441-B-D] 
B 
Titagarh Paper Mills Ltd. v. Orissa State Electricity Board 
-I 
1975 (2) sec 436, relied on. 
Ji 
2.1. Neither the Single Judge nor the Division Bench 
of the High Court examined the scope, purport and effect c 
of the O.M. dated 13.6.1985 and other related government 
orders. They merely relied upon the earlier judgment in 
-
Rabindra Nath Nandi and held that the appellant was 
legally bound to increase the rent from 3.8.1988 as per 
~-" 
>-
the recommendations of the Hiring Committee. [Para 13] D 
(442-D-E] 
2.2. The elaborate decision in Rabindra Nath Nandi 
_, 
missed the core issue and ignored the relevant law 
governing landlords and tenants. A lease is governed by 
E 
the terms of the contract (deed or agreement of lease) 
between the parties. If the contract prescribes a rent for 
the period of lease, the same being agreed rent, it is 
~ 
binding on the parties. If the lease pr

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