Summary
In this 2017 decision, the Court upheld refusal to refer a landlord’s eviction, rent-arrears and injunction suit to arbitration despite a clause in the expired lease. Applying Natraj Studios and Booz Allen, it held the civil suit maintainable, including where the premises were exempt from rent-control legislation, and directed trial on the merits.
Issues
- Whether the tenant’s Section 8 application required reference of the eviction dispute to arbitration.
- Whether rent-control exemption changed the Court’s conclusion.
Held
- The Court applied Natraj Studios and Booz Allen to uphold rejection of the Section 8 application, treating the landlord’s eviction and associated claims as matters for the civil court despite the contractual arbitration clause. This records the ruling made in 2017. (¶ 18–24)
- It rejected the argument that exemption from the Delhi rent statute automatically made the dispute arbitrable, holding in this judgment that Transfer of Property Act rights concerning the exempt premises were triable by the civil court. (¶ 25–27)
- The appeal failed, but the merits of eviction, arrears and other relief were not decided. The civil court was directed to proceed expeditiously and independently of the observations concerning reference. (¶ 29–30)
Result
Appeal dismissed; refusal of arbitration reference upheld and civil court directed to try the suit expeditiously on its merits.