Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1,17,65,259/-."

04. On 17.02.2024, the petitioner filed an application under Section 16 of the Act, inter alia, making objection to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to adjudicate upon the disputes raised in the statement of the claim taking a plea that the dispute exclusively fell within the ambit of the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 (for short 'the BBC Act') and appropriate civil court would have jurisdiction and not the Arbitral Tribunal. The respondent on 21.02.2024, filed its reply to the Section 16 Application. The petitioner on 01.03.2024, Patna High Court C.Misc. No.585 of 2025 dt.25-07-2025 filed his rejoinder to the reply. On 17.02.2024, the petitioner filed its statement of defence along with its compilation of documents and raising various contentions and opposing the reliefs sought by the respondent. The petitioner filed counter claim, inter alia, seeking security deposit and interest. The respondent on 21.02.2024 filed its reply to the counter claim. On 23.02.2024, the respondent filed first amendment application under Section 23(3) of the Act seeking amendment in the following claims against the petitioner:

07. Learned counsel, Mr. Saurav Agrawal, who addressed the Court through video conferencing, at the outset, submitted that the impugned order of learned Arbitrator is ex facie, arbitrary, illegal and without considering the facts of the matter. Patna High Court C.Misc. No.585 of 2025 dt.25-07-2025 The order passed by the learned Arbitrator is without jurisdiction and is perverse. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Arbitrator failed to appreciate that there was patent lack of jurisdiction and the dispute forming the subject matter is squarely covered by Section 18(3) of the BBC Act. Mr. Agrawal further submitted that the lease came to an end on 14.03.2021 and the petitioner vacated the premises and was not in possession of the same and any claim made by the respondent for payment of subsequent rent is without any basis. When objection was taken by the petitioner before the learned Arbitrator, the respondent filed an amendment application and instead of claiming rent, started asking for compensation. Mr. Agrawal further submitted that once the lease agreement came to an end, the Arbitration Clause of the lease agreement also came to an end and did not remain applicable for any subsequent claim made by the claimant/respondent. Mr. Agrawal further submitted that when further objection was raised by the petitioner under Section 16 of the Act, nature and description of Claim No. 2 was changed as 'claim for liquidated damages' whereas prior to amendment, the Claim No. 2 was read as 'claim for compensation/illegal occupation'. Mr. Agrawal further submitted that the respondent, by filing Patna High Court C.Misc. No.585 of 2025 dt.25-07-2025 consecutive amendment application sought to justify and modify the nature of claim and the learned Arbitrator, erroneously, allowed the amendment applications and thus, allowed the respondent to overcome the objection raised by the petitioner under Section 16 of the Act.

09. Mr. Agrawal further submitted that the learned Arbitrator inherently lacked jurisdiction in the matter and if there is patent lack of inherent jurisdiction, this Court is empowered to intervene in the matter under Article 227 of the Patna High Court C.Misc. No.585 of 2025 dt.25-07-2025 Constitution of India and, therefore, this petition would be maintainable. Mr. Agrawal submitted that if an application under Section 16 of the Act was dismissed by the Arbitrator, it is permissible for this Court to entertain an application under Article 227 of the Constitution if such an order is so perverse that the patent lack of inherent jurisdiction stares one in face. In the present case, perversity is very much obvious but the learned Arbitrator proceeded in the matter knowing very well that after termination of the lease agreement, there remained no scope for arbitration in the matter. The respondent could maintain only a civil suit under the BBC Act or the Transfer of Property Act or to avail any other statutory remedy except proceeding in the matter under the Act.

12. Thus, Mr. Agrawal has submitted that the present petition is maintainable considering the fact that once the lease deed was terminated, there remained no arbitration agreement between the parties and proceeding with the arbitration agreement by the learned Arbitrator is illegal and the same requires interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

13. Mr. Apurv Yash, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent, vehemently contended that there could be no question about legality of proceeding before the learned Arbitrator and the same is perfectly valid. Learned counsel, at the outset, took this Court to the order passed by the learned Arbitrator and submitted that the learned Arbitrator observed that the effective claims of the claimant are three fold; (i) damages for wrongful deprivation of possession of demise premises after willful surrender/ termination of tenancy by the Respondents; (ii) cost of restoration of the demise premises to its original status, and; (iii) the Electricity charges and the Patna High Court C.Misc. No.585 of 2025 dt.25-07-2025 maintenance charges which were payable during the period of deprivation including the enhanced fixed charge of electricity which the Respondents did not get reduced upon their leaving the premises. It has further been noted that except for the first claim, learned Arbitrator noted that, admittedly, other two claims could be tried and adjudicated upon by the Arbitral Tribunal. Learned counsel further submitted that for adjudication of the first claim, the petitioner contended that the claim of the claimant basically related to Section 18(3) of the BBC Act and the present petitioner relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Drolia Vs. Durga Trading Corporation, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 1. However, the learned Arbitrator discussed the law as provided under Section 18(3) of the BBC Act and came to the conclusion that the claimant/respondent did not claim any relief in terms of Section 18(3) of the BBC Act. On the same line, Vidya Drolia (supra) has been distinguished as the claim of the claimant/respondent was not found to be falling within the ambit of four conditions laid down in the case of Vidya Drolia (supra) whereunder a dispute was held to be non-arbitral. Learned counsel further submitted that on further discussion, the learned Arbitrator came to the conclusion that the arbitral proceeding was not without Patna High Court C.Misc. No.585 of 2025 dt.25-07-2025 jurisdiction in relation to all of any of the reliefs as sought by the Claimant.