SHANKARLAL LAXMINARAYAN RATHI Vs. UDAYSINGH DINKARRAO RAJURKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent Udaysingh Rajurkar filed an application under Clause 13 (3) (I), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (vi) of the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, referred to hereinafter as the Rent Control Order against the present petitioner Shankarlal Rathi. It is an admitted position that petitioner Shankarlal Rathi is a lessee and the property leased out to him is a Cinema theatre and two shops near the main gate and surrounding open land forming Plot No. 12, Sheet No. 27-C of Akola. Initially a Lease-deed was executed on 4th May, 1946, between the parties. It was a registered lease-deed. It seems from the record that in the year 1964 the landlord had filed an application under Clause 13 (3) (vi) of the Rent Control Order against the tenant, but the said application was rejected. Ultimately the matter came to the High Court. However, according to landlord in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in which it was held that if a person is already in occupation of any house of his own in the town, he could not file an application under clause 13 (3) (vi) of the Rent Control Order and also in view of other technical difficulties, he withdrew his initial application. Thereafter this fresh application was filed. When the present proceedings were initiated, petitioner Shankarlal Rathi filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act relying upon an arbitration clause in the lease-deed dated 4th May 1946. The relevant clause in the lease- deed reads as under:

(2.) In reply to this application it was submitted on behalf of the landlord that the question involved in these proceedings can be decided by the Rent Control Authorities alone. According to the landlord, the arbitration clause did not cover the proceedings under the Rent Control Order. He further contended that on an earlier occasion such a plea was not raised by the tenant, and therefore, the application filed by the tenant under Section 35 of the Arbitration Act was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The House Rent Controller, Akola rejected the said application, because, according to him, the issue involved in the proceedings cannot form the subject-matter of arbitration. Petitioner Shankarlal Rathi then filed an appeal, which was heard and decided by the Resident Collector, Akola. The learned Resident Deputy Collector also came tot he conclusion that the relief sought in the application before the Rent Controller cannot form the subject-matter of an arbitration, and therefore, the application filed by the tenant was not maintainable. In the view of this, he dismissed the appeal. Against these orders the present writ petition has been filed by the original tenant.