Special rent control disputes are non-arbitrable where exclusive statutory remedies govern eviction and rent enhancement.

Disputes arising from a lease governed by the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 were held to be non-arbitrable because the landlord's remedies for rent enhancement and eviction lie within the special statutory framework and involve matters in rem. The Court applied the principle that rights governed by exclusive welfare legislation cannot be contracted out of by an arbitration clause, so private reference to arbitration was unavailable. The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was found inapplicable on the facts, and the petition for appointment of a sole arbitrator was therefore not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a dispute arising out of a lease of premises governed by rent control law could be referred to arbitration, and whether the petition seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator was maintainable.

Analysis: The dispute was held to concern rights and remedies that fall within the statutory framework of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. The Court treated such disputes as matters in rem and noted that the landlord's remedies for enhancement of rent and eviction are to be worked out under the special rent control statute. Relying on the principle that disputes governed by a special welfare legislation with exclusive forum provisions cannot be contracted out of by an arbitration clause, the Court held that arbitration was not an available forum. The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 was also held inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: The dispute was not arbitrable and the petition for appointment of an arbitrator was not maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: Disputes regulated by a special rent control statute and falling within matters in rem must be resolved before the statutory forum and cannot be referred to arbitration by private agreement.

---