Lease disputes under the Transfer of Property Act are arbitrable, and international commercial arbitration supports arbitrator appointment.

A lease or sub-lease dispute governed only by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and not by a special rent control statute, is arbitrable because those provisions do not create an exclusive public forum or bar private adjudication. On that basis, the dispute was held capable of arbitration. The matter also qualified as an international commercial arbitration because one party was a foreign national habitually resident outside India; therefore, the power to appoint the arbitrator vested in the Supreme Court under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. With no objection to the proposed appointment, a sole arbitrator could be constituted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a dispute arising out of a lease or sub-lease governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is arbitrable when the premises are not protected by a special rent statute. (ii) Whether the Supreme Court was the proper forum to appoint the sole arbitrator in view of the parties' arbitration agreement and the character of the dispute as an international commercial arbitration.

Issue (i): Whether a dispute arising out of a lease or sub-lease governed by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is arbitrable when the premises are not protected by a special rent statute.

Analysis: The dispute concerned a lease arrangement governed by the Transfer of Property Act and not by a special rent control statute. Disputes under special rent statutes remain non-arbitrable because such enactments confer statutory protection on tenants and reserve jurisdiction to specified courts or forums. By contrast, in a lease governed only by the Transfer of Property Act, the statutory provisions relating to determination of lease and relief against forfeiture do not create an exclusive public forum or render the dispute incapable of private adjudication. The later view that such Transfer of Property Act disputes are arbitrable was accepted, and the earlier contrary view was treated as no longer governing.

Conclusion: The dispute was held to be arbitrable.

Issue (ii): Whether the Supreme Court was the proper forum to appoint the sole arbitrator in view of the parties' arbitration agreement and the character of the dispute as an international commercial arbitration.

Analysis: The petitioner was described as a foreign national habitually resident outside India, which brought the matter within the definition of international commercial arbitration. In such a case, the power to appoint the arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 vests in the Supreme Court. Since the agreement contained an arbitration clause and the respondent did not object to the proposed appointment, there was no impediment to constituting the tribunal.

Conclusion: The Supreme Court was the proper forum to appoint the sole arbitrator.

Final Conclusion: The dispute was held arbitrable and a sole arbitrator was appointed for its resolution.

Ratio Decidendi: A lease dispute governed only by the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and not by a special rent control statute, is arbitrable; where the dispute qualifies as an international commercial arbitration, the Supreme Court may appoint the arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

---