SHREY CHOUKSEY Vs. PUNCHVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The present petition is against the order dtd. 3/8/2022 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur wherein the order dtd. 18/3/2019 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Rent Control Authority, Bilaspur was set aside and the case was remanded back to Rent Control Authority to adjudicate afresh.

(2.) The brief facts of this case are that :-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the tenancy agreement which was executed initially contains an arbitration clause which includes that even for seeking eviction of the premises, it would be the Arbitrator who would decide the lis. He would further submit that as per the agreement subsequently some dispute arose and an award was passed and according to the award amendment of the initial agreement of tenancy was executed and according to it the tenancy would be from 1/1/2015 to 31/12/2026. He would further submit that it was consented by both the parties and subsequent thereto the petitioner is paying the rent. He further submit that the tenancy agreement in uninvocable terms contains the arbitration clause, therefore, the dispute to get the premises vacated would be out of the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Authority and it would be an arbitrable dispute. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has misdirected itself to apply the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Drolia s. Durga Trading Corporation reported in AIRONLINE 2020 SC 929 and the ratio would not support the finding. Therefore, wrong finding has been arrived at by misinterpretation of law. He further placed his reliance in the case of Brij Raj Oberoi Vs. Secretary, Tourism And Civil Aviation Department reported in LAWS(SC)-2022-8-61 and would submit ratio decided in both the cases would go to show that the dispute of like nature cannot be directly brought before the Rent Control Authority and the order of the Rent Control Authority was correct and submit that the order of Rent Control Tribunal is liable to be set aside.