RUTU TUSHAR VACCHANI Vs. DEVYANIBEN SATISHBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions arise out of a common background. We may refer to facts as emerge in IAAP No.13/2014. The petitioner seeks appointment of an arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent arising out of an agreement dated 5.8.2002 titled as leave and license agreement. Under such agreement, the petitioner was put in possession of an immovable property in the nature of a shop on 1.6.2002 and was allowed to to use the same upto 31.5.2012 for a period of 10 years with agreed rent of Rs.2500/-per month revised by 15% every three years. Undisputedly, the petitioner enjoyed the use, occupation and possession of the said property for the period envisaged in the agreement. The petitioner however, wanted to continue to use the said property on the same or similar terms. It appears that the petitioner and the respondent did try to work out fresh arrangement. The same however, did not materialise. Apprehending eviction, the petitioner moved the Civil Court for interim protection by filing arbitration application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Case of the respondent however, is that before moving the Civil Court the petitioner had already lost the possession. Be that as it may, I am not concerned with these factual disputes.

(2.) Insofar as this petition is concerned, in view of the rival contentions, following two clauses of the said agreement dated 5.8.2002 which are relevant when translated read as under :

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of such clauses of the agreement, the disputes pertaining to non renewal of the agreement and forcible summary eviction of the petitioner by the respondent would be an arbitrable dispute. Arbitration agreement would survive the main agreement itself. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Reva Electric Car Co. P. ltd v. Green Mobil, 2012 AIR(SC) 739 in this respect. Counsel further submitted that while making reference to the arbitrator, it is optional for the Chief Justice or his designate to decide the question of limitation or whether the cause is a different one. In this respect, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Schlumberger Asia Services Ltd v Oil & Natural Gas Corporation ltd., 2013 7 SCC 562.