9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 675 - HC - Indian LawsAppointment of an arbitrator - lease agreement - enhancement of rent - Held that - It is well settled that in the cases of matters in rem , the arbitration cannot be invoked - In the instant case, the petitioner is entitled to file a petition for enhancement of rent under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. In case the respondents fail to vacate and commit willful default, the petitioner is entitled to evict the respondents under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. It is also the apprehension of the petitioner that the respondents, being a Government Agency, they may rely on the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and also on the basis of arbitration clause will raise objections with regard to maintainability of the eviction petition filed under the above mentioned provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. In fact, the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, is applicable only against those under unauthorised occupation of the public premises and not against lawful persons - Therefore, the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, will not apply to the case on hand. Therefore, the petitioner shall work out his remedy under Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The Original Petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
Issues:
1. Appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to resolve a dispute arising from a Lease Agreement. 2. Whether the issue can be referred to arbitration based on legal precedents. 3. Jurisdiction of Special Courts in matters "in rem" and applicability of relevant Acts. Appointment of Sole Arbitrator: The petitioner filed an Original Petition seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to address a dispute stemming from a Lease Agreement with Central Government Departments. The petitioner faced challenges in obtaining enhanced rentals and claiming damages due to the respondent being a Government department, prompting the invocation of the arbitration clause in the Lease Agreement. Referral to Arbitration - Legal Precedents: The respondents cited legal precedents, including the judgment in NATRAJ STUDIOS VS. NAVRANG STUDIOS, to argue against referring the issue to arbitration. The court noted that in cases "in rem," arbitration cannot be invoked. It highlighted the petitioner's entitlement to file for rent enhancement under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, and the right to evict under Section 10 of the same Act. The court expressed concerns that the respondents, being a Government Agency, might challenge the eviction petition based on the arbitration clause and the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Jurisdiction of Special Courts and Applicability of Acts: The court referred to the judgment in NATRAJ STUDIOS VS. NAVRANG STUDIOS to emphasize that matters "in rem" should be decided by Special Courts established for such issues. It clarified that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, is applicable only to unauthorized occupants of public premises, not lawful tenants. Consequently, the Act would not apply in this case, directing the petitioner to seek remedies under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. Ultimately, the Original Petition was dismissed as not maintainable, with no costs imposed. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of appointing a Sole Arbitrator, the referral to arbitration based on legal precedents, and the jurisdiction of Special Courts in matters "in rem," providing a detailed understanding of the court's decision and reasoning.
|
