Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.24 seconds)Section 8 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 [Entire Act]
The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent control) Act, 1965
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Vidya Drolia vs Durga Trading Corporation on 14 December, 2020
14. I do not lose sight of the fact that Annexure A3 does not
seek eviction of the 1st respondent and confines the claim therein to
the arrear dues that are payable by the 1st respondent to the
petitioner. Since the petitioner has not sought eviction of the 1st
respondent invoking the grounds available to a landlord under
Section 11 of the 1965 Act and had only sought recovery of arrears,
would such a claim which does not prima facie attract the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Rent Controller debar the petitioner from invoking
the provisions of Section 11(6) to seek appointment of an
independent Arbitrator? Is not such a dispute or difference between
the parties regarding the settling of outstanding dues a simple
monetary claim that could be arbitrated as it does not call for the
invocation of the provisions of the special statute? The precedents
on the point answer these questions against the petitioner. Vidya
AR NO.18/2025 18
2025:KER:28292
Drolia (supra) holds that landlord-tenant disputes covered and
governed by rent control legislation would not be arbitrable when a
specific court or forum has been given exclusive jurisdiction to apply
and decide special rights and obligations. It has been held that such
rights and obligations can only be adjudicated and enforced by the
specified court/forum, and not through arbitration.