- (1.) THE main issue in the present appeal is as to whether the dispute between the tenant and landlord is arbitral in -spite of an arbitration clause incorporated in the lease -deed / rent note in view of the provisions of section 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (hereinafter 'the Act of 2001') which reads as under: "18. Jurisdiction of Rent Tribunal - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in the areas to which this Act extends only the Rent Tribunal and no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide the petitions relating to disputes between landlord and tenant and matters connected therewith and ancillary thereto, filed under the provisions of this Act: Provided that Rent Tribunal shall, in deciding such petitions to which provisions contained in Chapter II and III of this Act do not apply, have due regard to the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Act No.4 of 1882) the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Act No. 9 of 1872), or any other substantive law applicable to such matter in the same manner in which such law would have been applied had the dispute been brought before the Civil Court by way of suit: Provided further that nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to empower the Rent Tribunal to entertain a petition involving such dispute between landlord and tenant to which provisions of the Rajasthan Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1996 (Act No. 2 of 1965) and the Rajasthan Premises (Requisition and Eviction) Ordinance, 1949 apply. (2) Where the petition only for recovery of unpaid rent or arrears of rent is filed, the time schedule and procedure enumerated in Sec. 14 shall mutatis mutandis apply to such petition. (3) Where the petition for recovery of possession is filed in respect of the premises of tenancies to which the provisions of Chapters II and III of this Act do not apply, the time schedule and procedure enumerated in Sec. 15 shall mutatis mutandis apply to such petition. (4) A petition shall be instituted before the Rent Tribunal, within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the premises is situated."
(2.) MR . Inderjeet Singh, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the appellant BSNL submits that section 18(1) of the Act of 2001 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the jurisdictional Rent Tribunal to adjudicate the landlord - tenant's disputes. He submits that the exclusion of jurisdiction of Civil Court's in respect of landlord -tenant's dispute would also include the exclusion of arbitration proceedings in respect thereof as the Arbitrator exercises power under a contract with regard to the jurisdiction otherwise conferred on Civil Courts. Therefore the exclusionary impact on the Civil Court's jurisdiction would also attract to the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator operating under the Act of 1996. In support of his contention Mr. Singh has placed reliance on National Textile Corporation & Ors v. Rent Control Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur & Ors., 2011 (3) WLC 458. Mr. S.P Sharma, Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. Ankur Gupta, appearing for the respondent claimant - landlord (hereinafter 'the landlord') submits that the grounds raised in this appeal are absolutely dishonest and only to harass the landlord. He submits that in the first instance the landlord had indeed approached the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur under the provisions of the Act of 2001. Thereupon an objection was raised by the appellant BSNL that the lease deed in respect of the tenanted premises incorporated an arbitral clause and therefore the matter was arbitrable to the exclusion of the Civil Court's jurisdiction. Sr. Counsel submits that thereupon the learned Rent Tribunal, Jaipur vide order dated 18.8.2010 returned the eviction petition filed by the landlord requiring them to take his remedy under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1996'). The appellant BSNL itself then vide order dated 11.10.2010 appointed an Arbitrator. Subsequently, even while filing the statement of defence to the landlord's claim before the Arbitrator no issue as to the jurisdiction of Arbitration in terms of section 16(2) of the Act of 1996 was raised by the appellant BSNL. Senior Counsel submitted that the appellant BSNL is a public undertaking and it ought not to misuse the judicial process by approbating and reprobating and while on the one hand claiming that the matter was not within the jurisdiction of the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur, on the other hand thereafter belatedly stating before the Arbitrator that the matter was not arbitral in view of the purported exclusive jurisdiction in respect of landlord -tenant disputes vesting in the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur under the Act of 2001.
(3.) COUNSEL however submitted that to eschew any delays in eviction proceedings taken by the landlord and in view of the case now set up before this Court by the appellant BSNL that the dispute is to be adjudicated under the provisions of the Act of 2001 he would concede in the present appeal but seek a direction that the eviction petition in respect of the tenanted premises as laid before the Rent Tribunal, Jaipur by the respondent landlord in the first instance be revived and adjudicated within a period of four months from the presentation of a certified copy of this order.;