Contractual lease disputes remain arbitrable where public premises law does not exclude the arbitration clause, and Section 11 review is prima facie only.

Contractual disputes arising during the subsistence of a lease, including renewal and revision of storage charges, remained referable to arbitration because the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 governs eviction from unauthorised occupation and does not displace disputes based on interpretation of the agreement. At the Section 11 stage, the referral court's role is confined to a prima facie check on the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, not a merits review. The arbitration clause covered disputes arising out of or touching the agreement, so appointment of an arbitrator was within jurisdiction and the arbitral process was allowed to continue.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 overrides the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in respect of disputes arising from the lease agreement. (ii) Whether the High Court erred in appointing an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Issue (i): Whether the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 overrides the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in respect of disputes arising from the lease agreement.

Analysis: The disputes concerned the parties' rights and obligations under the lease, including renewal and revision of storage charges, and arose during the subsistence of the agreement. The Public Premises Act governs eviction from unauthorised occupation and consequential directions, whereas the claims in question depended on interpretation and construction of the contract. The statutory regime for public premises did not cover or displace the contractual disputes that fell within the arbitration clause.

Conclusion: The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 does not override the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for these disputes, and the contention failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court erred in appointing an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The arbitration clause covered all disputes arising out of or touching the agreement, and the disputes regarding renewal and enhanced charges plainly arose from that agreement. The scope of inquiry at the Section 11 stage is confined to a prima facie examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement, not a detailed adjudication on merits. On that limited scrutiny, the High Court's appointment of an arbitrator was within jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The High Court did not commit any error in appointing the arbitrator under Section 11.

Final Conclusion: The contractual disputes were referable to arbitration, the referral court's limited role was correctly applied, and the arbitral proceedings were directed to resume.

Ratio Decidendi: At the Section 11 stage, the referral court is confined to a prima facie examination of the existence of a valid arbitration agreement, and disputes arising from contractual rights during the subsistence of the agreement remain referable to arbitration unless the special statute expressly excludes them.

---