https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199494 An arbitration clause in a lease deed could not override proceedings under the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, because the statute vested exclusive power to grant or refuse eviction permission in the Rent Controller. The special rent control scheme was treated as a complete code, so the dispute could not be transferred to an arbitrator by private agreement. Any attempt to contract out of the protective legislation was contrary to public policy under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. A stay under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was therefore not maintainable and the rent control proceedings remained outside arbitration. en-us Tue, 09 Dec 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Mar 2018 11:22:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199494 An arbitration clause in a lease deed could not override proceedings under the C. P. and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, because the statute vested exclusive power to grant or refuse eviction permission in the Rent Controller. The special rent control scheme was treated as a complete code, so the dispute could not be transferred to an arbitrator by private agreement. Any attempt to contract out of the protective legislation was contrary to public policy under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. A stay under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was therefore not maintainable and the rent control proceedings remained outside arbitration. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 09 Dec 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199494