1975 (12) TMI 180 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the arbitration clause in the lease-deed to disputes under the Rent Control Order.
2. Jurisdiction of Rent Control Authorities versus Arbitrators.
3. Public policy considerations under the Rent Control Order and Section 23 of the Contract Act.
4. Interpretation of Clause 13 of the Rent Control Order.
5. Relevance of precedents cited by the petitioner.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of the arbitration clause in the lease-deed to disputes under the Rent Control Order:

The petitioner argued that the arbitration clause in the lease-deed dated 4th May 1946 should apply to the disputes raised under the Rent Control Order. The clause stated that any dispute arising in connection with the lease, including construction, maintenance, payment of rent, or any other matter, should be referred to arbitration. The petitioner contended that the proceedings initiated by the landlord under the Rent Control Order should be stayed pending arbitration as per Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.

2. Jurisdiction of Rent Control Authorities versus Arbitrators:

The landlord countered that the Rent Control Authorities alone could decide the issues under the Rent Control Order, and the arbitration clause did not cover these proceedings. The House Rent Controller and the Resident Deputy Collector both concluded that the relief sought under the Rent Control Order could not be arbitrated, thus rejecting the petitioner's application. The court reaffirmed this view, stating that the Rent Control Order is a special legislation enacted to protect tenants and regulate the letting of accommodation, and it confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Rent Control Authorities.

3. Public policy considerations under the Rent Control Order and Section 23 of the Contract Act:

The court emphasized that the Rent Control Order was enacted to prevent exploitation of tenants by landlords, especially during times of accommodation scarcity. The provisions of the Rent Control Order, including Clause 13, are based on public policy to protect tenants and ensure fair treatment. The court cited the Supreme Court's decisions in Murlidhar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Ichharam, which held that agreements attempting to circumvent the protections provided by rent control legislation are against public policy and thus void under Section 23 of the Contract Act.

4. Interpretation of Clause 13 of the Rent Control Order:

Clause 13 of the Rent Control Order requires landlords to obtain prior written permission from the Rent Controller before giving notice to a tenant to determine the lease. The court noted that the Rent Control Order is a complete code in itself, conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Rent Controller. Any agreement attempting to confer this power on another authority, including an arbitrator, would be unlawful and against public policy. The court reiterated that the satisfaction of the conditions in Clause 13 must be determined by the Rent Controller alone.

5. Relevance of precedents cited by the petitioner:

The petitioner relied on several Supreme Court decisions, including Anderson Wright Ltd. v. Moran and Company, The Printers (Mysore) Private Ltd. v. Pothan Joseph, and Michael Golodetz v. Serajuddin and Co., to support the applicability of the arbitration clause. However, the court found these decisions distinguishable, as they dealt with different contexts and did not apply to the special legislation of the Rent Control Order. The court concluded that Section 34 of the Arbitration Act did not apply to the present case.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the petition, holding that the arbitration clause in the lease-deed could not override the provisions of the Rent Control Order. The exclusive jurisdiction of the Rent Control Authorities to decide the issues under the Rent Control Order could not be conferred on an arbitrator by agreement. The petition was dismissed with costs.