Non-arbitrability of eviction disputes confirmed: tenancy claims remain for civil adjudication despite an arbitration clause.

A tenancy dispute for eviction and recovery of rent was held non-arbitrable, so a civil suit could not be referred to arbitration merely because the lease contained an arbitration clause. The Court applied the settled principle that eviction matters falling within the class of non-arbitrable tenancy disputes remain for civil adjudication. It also held that exemption from rent-control protection did not change the forum: once the special rent statute ceased to apply, the parties' rights were governed by the Transfer of Property Act, and the civil court remained the proper forum. The appeal therefore failed and the suit was maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a civil suit for eviction and ancillary reliefs arising out of a tenancy agreement containing an arbitration clause is referable to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; (ii) whether exemption of the premises from the rent law altered the forum for adjudication of eviction and tenancy disputes.

Issue (i): Whether a civil suit for eviction and ancillary reliefs arising out of a tenancy agreement containing an arbitration clause is referable to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The dispute was one for eviction of the tenant and recovery of rent, which squarely fell within the class of tenancy matters held to be non-arbitrable in authoritative precedent. Matters involving eviction from premises, particularly where the statutory or public law framework reserves such disputes for civil adjudication, cannot be compelled to arbitration merely because the underlying lease deed contains an arbitration clause.

Conclusion: The application under Section 8 was not maintainable and the civil suit was rightly held to be maintainable; the finding is against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether exemption of the premises from the rent law altered the forum for adjudication of eviction and tenancy disputes.

Analysis: The absence of rent-control protection did not make the dispute arbitrable. Once the special rent statute ceased to apply, the rights of the parties were governed by the Transfer of Property Act and the ordinary civil court remained the proper forum for eviction disputes. Exemption from the rent law did not confer jurisdiction on an arbitrator to decide such disputes.

Conclusion: Exemption from the rent law did not shift jurisdiction to arbitration; the finding is against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the eviction and tenancy dispute was not capable of referral to arbitration, and the civil court was the proper forum to try the suit on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Eviction and tenancy disputes governed by the ordinary civil law, and especially those falling within the class of non-arbitrable matters, cannot be referred to arbitration merely because the contract contains an arbitration clause.

---