MEHEK-E Vs. ARYAN DHATU PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order being No.38 dated 19th June, 2018 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 1st Court, Barasat, 24 Parganas (North) staying suit till the award and thereby referring the subject matter in dispute to the arbitrator on the prayer of the defendant/opposite party under Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in connection with Title Suit No.3 of 2017 is subject of challenge in this revisional application.

(2.) Admittedly an agreement for leave and licence dated 1st day of December, 2015 was executed between the parties. The agreement contained an Arbitral Clause (Clause 8). The petitioner/licensee filed a suit in the court below (T.S 3 of 2017) praying for declaration of his tenancy right. In the pending suit, the landlord/licensor/opposite party filed a petition under Sections 5 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for making reference to Arbitrator for resolving the dispute pertaining to leave and licence agreement for the presence of the Arbitral Clause, contained in Clause 8, of the agreement. The court below upon seeing the primacy of the Clause 8 contained in the leave and licence agreement referred the matter to Arbitrator staying the suit till the award is passed by the Arbitrator.

(3.) Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the order making reference to Arbitrator was illegal and the pending suit ought not to have been stayed, as the rights of the petitioner could not be determined by the Arbitrator. It was thus proposed by the learned advocate for the petitioner that instead of making reference of the subject mater of dispute to Arbitrator, the court below ought to have adjudicated the matter in controversy between the parties, and further stay was granted making contravention of the provisions of the law.