ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The original defendant has challenged the order passed by the trial Court rejecting application (Exh.11) filed by the petitioner/ defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
4. Undisputedly, the respondents/ plaintiffs are the landlord and petitioner / defendant is tenant. The respondents filed civil suit under Section 16(1)(b) and 16(1)(g) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 against the defendant praying for decree for eviction and other reliefs. In this civil suit, the defendant filed application (Exh.11) contending that as per clause 14 in the agreement of lease dated 4thAugust, 1995 the dispute between the landlord and tenant is required to be referred to and resolved by Arbitral Tribunal. The defendant contended that the plaintiffs also relied on Clause 14 of the agreement of lease and had issued notice dated 8th June, 2006 calling upon the defendant to take steps as per Clause 14 of the Agreement of Lease and to suggest the name of the Arbitrator the defendant intended to appoint. The submission on behalf of the defendant is that in
2
view of Clause 14 of the Agreement of Lease and the fact that the plaintiffs have themselves acted as per the above referred clause, the plaintiffs cannot maintain the civil suit and they will have to prosecute their remedy before the Arbitral Tribunal. The defendant prayed that the plaint be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the relief claimed by the plaintiffs in the civil suit is barred by law and cannot be granted by the Civil Court.
5. The advocate for the petitioner/ defendant argued that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is a complete Code in itself and in view of Clause 14 of the Agreement of Lease, the plaintiffs cannot file and maintain the civil suit for redressal of their grievance and they have to approach the Arbitral Tribunal. To support the submission reliance is placed on the judgment given in the case of Sasan Power Ltd. Vs. North Americal Coal Corpn. (India) (P) Ltd., reported in (2016) 10 SCC 813 (specifically paragraph No.81) and the judgment given in the case of Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. Vs. Jindal Exports Ltd., reported in AIR 2011 SC 2649 (specifically paragraph No.72). It is submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. It is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the application (Exh.11) filed by the defendant be allowed.
6. The advocate for the respondents/ plaintiffs has submitted that the provisions of Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 oust
3
the jurisdiction of any other forum including the Arbitral Tribunal and therefore, Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the civil suit filed by the plaintiffs seeking decree for eviction under the provisions of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. To support the submission reliance is placed on the judgment given in the case of Ravindra Vs. L. & S. Constructions, reported in 2010(1) Mh. L.J. 994.
7. The point which falls for consideration in the petition is covered by the proposition laid down in the judgment given in the case of Ravindra Vitthalrao Songire (supra). Only because the plaintiffs have issued notice dated 8th June, 2006 and have called upon the defendant to propose the name of Arbitrator, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs are estopped from filing and prosecuting the civil suit.
8. The learned trial Judge has adverted to all the relevant aspects and after considering the legal position has rightly rejected the application. I do not find any error of jurisdiction by the trial Court. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
RRaut..
4