LexRANJIT KUMAR BOSE & ANR. versus ANANNYA CHOWDHURY & ANR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 645
RANJIT KUMAR BOSE & ANR.
v.
ANANNYA CHOWDHURY & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 3334 of 2014)
MARCH 07, 2014
[A.K. PATNAIK AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.)
WEST BENGAL PREMISES TENANCY ACT 1997:
A
B
s.6 - Suit for eviction under Tenancy Act - Application by c
defendant to refer the dispute to arbitration as per agreement
- Dismissed by trial court, but allowed by High Court - Held.
In view of sub-s.(3) of s.2 of 1996 Act, arbitration agreement
between landlord and tenant has to give way to s. 6 of
Tenancy Act which confers exclusive jurisdiction on Civil 0
Judge, to decide a dispute between landlord and tenant with
regard to recovery of possession of tenanted premises in a
suit filed by landlord - Impugned judgment of High Court set
aside and matter remanded to trial court to deal with the suit
in accordance with law -- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
E
- ss.2(3) and 8.
T.he appellants had inducted the respondents as
tenants in respect of the suit property, i-:-e. a shop room,
on a monthly rent, in terms of an unregistered tenancy
agreement which was notarized on 10.11.2003. On
F
06.03.2008, the appellants served a notice· on the
respondents terminating the tenancy and asking them to
vacate the shop premises. The appellants subsequently
filed a suit in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior
Division), against the respondents for eviction, arrears of G
rent, arrears of municipal tax, mesne profit and for
permanent injunction. In the suit, the respondents filed a
petition u/s 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
('the 1996 Act') stating that the tenancy agreement
645
H
646
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 3 S.C.R.
A
contained an arbitration agreement, and prayed that all
the disputes in the suit be referred to the arbitrator. By
order dated 10.06.2009, the Civil Judge dismissed the
petition. The respondents filed a petition under Art. 227
of the Constitution of India before the High Court, which
B
referred the disputes to the arbitrators to be appointed
by the parties.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Section 6 of the West Bengal Premises
c Tenancy Act 1997 lays down that 'notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in any contract', no
order or decree for recovery of possession of any
premises shall be made by the Civil Judge having
jurisdiction in favour of the landlord against the tenant,
0
'except on a suit being instituted by such landlord' on
one or more grounds mentioned therein. It is, thus, clear
that s. 6 overrides a contract between the landlord and
the tenant and provides that only the Civil Judge having
jurisdiction can order or decree for recovery of
possession in a suit to be filed by the landlord. [para 6]
E
[652-A-C]
1.2 In the instant case, there is an arbitration
agreement in clause 15 of the tenancy agreement, which
provides that any dispute regarding the contents or
F
construction of the tenancy agreement or dispute arising
out of the tenancy agreement shall be settled by
arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. But the words
'notwithstanding anything in any contract' in s. 6 of the
Tenancy Act, will override the arbitration agreement in
G clause 15 of the tenancy agreement where a suit for
recovery of possession of any premises has been filed
by a landlord against the tenant. Such a suit flied by the
landlord against the tenant for recovery of possession,
therefore, cannot be referred u/s 8 of the 1996 Act to
H arbitration. [para 8] [653-A-C]
RANJIT KUMAR BOSE & ANR. v. ANANNYA
-
647
CHOWDHURY & ANR.
1.3 Sub-s. (3) of s. 2 of the 1996 Act expressly A
provides that Part-I, which relates to 'arbitration' where the
place of arbitration is in India, shall not affect any other
law for the time being in force by virtue of which certain
disputes may not be submitted to arbitration. Section 6
of the Tenancy Act is one such law which clearly bars B
arbitration in a dispute relating to recovery of possession
of premises by the landlord from the tenant. Since the suit
filed by the appellants was for eviction, it was a suit for
recovery of possession and could not be referred to
arbitration because of a statutory provision in s. 6 of the c
Tenancy Act. The arbitration agreement between the
landlord and the tenant has to give way to s. 6 of the
Tenancy Act which confers exclusive jurisdiction on the
Civil Judge, to decide a disputExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.