TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1678
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mand drafts. The said demand drafts were returned. Therefore, the petitioner preferred RCOP No.71 of 2015 before the Rent Control Authority on 18.02.2015. Without disclosing the aforesaid fact, the 2nd respondent made Arbitration Reference Petition under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 in ARC No. 215/2015. In the said proceedings, a detail objection was filed by the petitioner, stating that reference petition is not maintainable under the Act and that the jurisdiction lies only with the Rent Control Authority. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent without considering the jurisdiction and allowed the petition on 27.10.2016. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the writ petition before this Court. 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent. Reiterating the contention stated in the counter affidavit, the learned Special Government Pleader would submit that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the award, the petitioner should have filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. However, without exhausting the appeal remedy provided under Section 152(1) of the Act, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uch disputes through the process of Courts, i.e. public fora, and not by Arbitral Tribunals, which is a private forum, is given by the court in the following manner: 35.The Arbitral Tribunals are private fora chosen voluntarily by the parties to the dispute, to adjudicate their disputes in place of courts and tribunals which are public fora constituted under the laws of the country. Every civil or commercial dispute, either contractual or noncontractual, which can be decided by a court, is in principle capable of being adjudicated and resolved by arbitration unless the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunals is excluded either expressly or by necessary implication. Adjudication of certain categories of proceedings are reserved by the legislature exclusively for public fora as a matter of public policy. Certain other categories of cases, though not expressly reserved for adjudication by public fora (courts and tribunals), may by necessary implication stand excluded from the purview of private fora. Consequently, where the cause/dispute is inarbitrable, the court where a suit is pending, will refuse to refer the parties to arbitration, under Section 8 of the Act, even if the parties....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in principle capable of being adjudicated upon and resolved by arbitration subject to the dispute being governed by the arbitration agreement unless the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal is excluded either expressly or by necessary implication. In Booz-Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd.[13], this Court held that adjudication of certain categories of proceedings is reserved by the legislature exclusively for public fora as a matter of public policy. Certain other categories of cases, though not exclusively reserved for adjudication by courts and tribunals may by necessary implication stand excluded from the purview of private fora. This Court set down certain examples of non-arbitrable disputes such as: (i) Disputes relating to rights and liabilities which give rise to or arise out of criminal offences; (ii) Matrimonial disputes relating to divorce, judicial separation, restitution of conjugal rights and child custody; (iii) Matters of guardianship; (iv) Insolvency and winding up; (v) Testamentary matters, such as the grant of probate, letters of administration and succession certificates; and vi) Eviction or tenancy matters governed by special statute....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rent Controller or through the due process of law ignited in civil courts where rent laws are not applicable then remedies can be sought through notices served under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act determining tenancy, followed by a civil suit praying for eviction by grant of a permanent and mandatory injunction. " In the case of Deccan Merchants Co-operative Bank Ltd., vs. M/s. Dalichand Jugraj Jain & Ors., reported in AIR 1969 SC 1320 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has observed as follows in paragraphs 18, 23, 32 and 41 : "18. The question arises whether the dispute touching the assets of a society would be a dispute touching the business of a society. This would depend on the nature of the society and the rules and bye-laws governing it. Ordinarily, if a society owns buildings and lets out parts of buildings which itdoes not require for its own purpose it cannot be said that letting out of those parts is a part of the business of the society. But it may be that it is the business of a society to construct and buy houses and let them out to its members. In that case letting out property may be part of its business. In this case, the society is a co-operative bank....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reported in AIR 1981 SC 537, in paragraphs 17, 18, 21 & 24 it is held as follows by the Hon'ble Supreme Court : "17. The Bombay Rent Act is a welfare legislation aimed at the definite social objective of protection of tenants against harassment by landlords in various ways. It is a matter of public policy. The scheme of the Act shows that the conferment of exclusive jurisdiction on certain Courts is pursuant to the social objective at which the legislation aims. Public policy requires that contracts to the contrary which nullify the rights conferred on tenants by the Act cannot be permitted. Therefore, public policy requires that parties cannot also be permitted to contract out of the legislative mandate which requires certain kind of disputes to be settled by special courts constituted by the Act. It follows that arbitration agreements between parties whose rights are regulated by the Bombay Rent Act cannot be recognised by a Court of law. 18. Thus exclusive jurisdiction is given to the Court of Small Causes and jurisdiction is denied to other Courts (1) to entertain and try any suit or proceeding between a landlord and a tenant relating to recovery of rent or possession o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authority of the precedents, we hold that both by reason of S.28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 and by reason of the broader considerations of public policy mentioned by us earlier and also in Deccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Dalichand Jugraj Jain & Ors. (supra), the Court of Small Causes has and the Arbitrator has not the jurisdiction to decide the question whether the respondent-licensee-landlord is entitled to seek possession of the two studios and other premises together with machinery and equipment from the appellant-licensee-tenant. That this is the real dispute between the parties is abundantly clear from the petition filed by the respondents in the High Court of Bombay, under S. 8 of the Arbitration Act seeking a reference to Arbitration. The petition refers to the notices exchanged by the parties, the respondent calling upon the appellant to hand over possession of the studios to him and the appellant claiming to be a tenant or protected licensee in respect of the studios. The relationship between the parties being that of licensor-landlord and licenseetenant and the dispute between them relating to the possession of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in view of the same, the petitioner is well within his right to file the suit before the civil Court and the Court below has fallen into an error, in coming to the conclusion that the bar under Section 156 of the Act is applicable to the case on hand, is not correct and the said order is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside." In the case of Sathish Raj vs. Atlanta Applied Dynamics (India), in CRP (PD) No.673 of 2006, this Court has observed as follows in paragraphs 8, 11, 17 & 20 :. "8. The learned counsel drew support from the decisions reported in 1966-II-M.L.J. 63 (M/s.Raval & Co. v. Ramachandran), AIR 1974 S.C. 818 (Raval & Co. v. K.G.Ramachandran) and 1981(1) SCC 523 (Natraj Studios v. Navrang Studios) to contend that even if there is an agreement between the landlord and tenant to refer the dispute to arbitration, still the landlord can maintain the petition before the rent controller for eviction. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners further submitted that the arbitrator himself cannot decide the question of eviction as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an award passed contrary to the substantive provisions of law would be paten....