Himangni Enterprises vs Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia - Supreme Court Important Judgment
Himangni Enterprises vs Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2017 -
On 12th October, 2017, in the case of Himangni Enterprises v. Kamaljeet Singh Ahluwalia [Civil Appeal No. 16850 of 2017], an application had been filed by the appellant under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in a pending civil suit filed by the respondent seeking appellant's eviction from the premises in question, which was located in Delhi. The application was rejected by the two Courts below. On appeal to the Supreme Court, it was held that “the Courts below were right in dismissing the appellant's application filed under Section 8 of the Act and thereby were justified in holding that the civil suit filed by the respondent was maintainable for grant of reliefs claimed in the plaint despite parties agreeing to get the disputes arising therefrom to be decided by the arbitrator.”
Rejecting the contention of the appellant that the provisions of the Delhi Rent Act,1955 were not applicable to the premises by virtue of Section 3(c) of the Act, the Supreme Court held that “the Delhi Rent Act, which deals with the cases relating to rent and eviction of the premises, is a special Act. Though it contains a provision (Section3) by virtue of it, the provisions of the Act do not apply to certain premises but that does not mean that the Arbitration Act, ipso facto, would be applicable to such premises conferring jurisdiction on the arbitrator to decide the eviction/rent disputes. In such a situation, the rights of the parties and the demised premises would be governed by the Transfer of Property Act and the civil suit would be triable by the Civil Court and not by the arbitrator. In other words, though by virtue of Section 3 of the Act, the provisions of the Act are not applicable to certain premises but no sooner the exemption is withdrawn or ceased to have its application to a particular premises, the Act becomes applicable to such premises. In this view of the matter, it cannot be contended that the provisions of the Arbitration Act would, therefore, apply to such premises.” Accordingly, the Civil Court concerned which was seized of the suit was directed to proceed with the trial of the suit on merits.