Arbitration clause governs disputed lease claims; Article 142 cannot bypass arbitration for evidence-based monetary disputes.

Disputes arising from a lease agreement, including arrears of rent, water and sewerage tax, and interest, fell within the arbitration clause and were capable of determination by an arbitral tribunal. The Court also held that Article 142 should not be used to bypass the statutory arbitration mechanism where the monetary claims were disputed and required evidence-based adjudication. As the amounts payable were contested on facts and calculations, direct grant of substantive relief was declined and the parties were left to have their claims decided in arbitration.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the dispute arising out of the lease agreement, including the claims for arrears of rent, water and sewerage tax, and interest, was required to be referred to arbitration under the arbitration clause; (ii) Whether the Court should, in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, grant the disputed monetary claims instead of directing arbitration.

Issue (i): Whether the dispute arising out of the lease agreement, including the claims for arrears of rent, water and sewerage tax, and interest, was required to be referred to arbitration under the arbitration clause.

Analysis: The dispute was founded on the lease agreements and the existence of an arbitration clause was supported by the photocopies placed on record. The Court held that such disputes were capable of being adjudicated by an arbitral tribunal and that the High Court was right in treating the matter as arbitral. The controversy over the amount payable did not take the matter outside the arbitration agreement.

Conclusion: The dispute was arbitrable and had to be referred to arbitration.

Issue (ii): Whether the Court should, in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, grant the disputed monetary claims instead of directing arbitration.

Analysis: The Court held that the power under Article 142 is to be exercised to do complete justice, but not to bypass the statutory scheme where the claims are disputed and can be appropriately decided by arbitration. Since the claims for balance rent, water and sewerage tax, and interest were contested and required adjudication on evidence, the Court found no basis to grant such relief directly.

Conclusion: The Court declined to award the disputed monetary relief under Article 142.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the direction to pursue the dispute through arbitration was maintained, leaving the parties to have their claims decided by the arbitrator in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the underlying dispute falls within the arbitration clause and the monetary claims are disputed on facts and calculations, the Court should not ordinarily bypass the statutory arbitration mechanism by invoking Article 142 to grant substantive relief.

---