P. Prabhakar Versus The Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Government of India Newry Towers, The Deputy Commissioner Office of the Deputy Commissioner GST & Central Excise
Indian Laws
2019 (3) TMI 675 – MADRAS HIGH COURT – TMI
MADRAS HIGH COURT – HC
Dated:- 29-1-2019
O.P.NO.787 OF 2018
Indian Laws
Mr. Justice M. Govindaraj
For the Petitioner : Mr.V.Sivakumar
For the Respondents : Mr.S.R.Sundar for Ms.R.Hemalatha
ORDER
This Original Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to appoint a Sole Arbitrator to hear and decide the dispute arose out of the Lease Agreement dated 01.03.2017 between the petitioner and the respondents.
2. The facts leading to the case on hand is that the respondents, who are Central Government Departments, entered into a Lease Agreement with the petitioner / landlord, on 01.03.2017. The rent paid by the respondents is very meagre. Fixation of fair rent falls within the domain of the respondents, which is based on the rate fixed by th
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
em”, the arbitration cannot be invoked. In the instant case, the petitioner is entitled to file a petition for enhancement of rent under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. In case the respondents fail to vacate and commit willful default, the petitioner is entitled to evict the respondents under Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960. It is also the apprehension of the petitioner that the respondents, being a Government Agency, they may rely on the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and also on the basis of arbitration clause will raise objections with regard to maintainability of the eviction petition filed under the above mentioned provisions of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960.
6. In this regard, it is relevant to extract paragraphs 17, 18 and 24 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NATRAJ STUDIOS (P) LTD. VS. NAVRANG STUDIOS [1981 (1) SCC
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
ain and try any suit or proceeding between a landlord and a tenant relating to recovery of rent or possession of any premises, (2) to try any suit or proceeding between a licensor and a licensee relating to the recovery of licence fee or charge, (3) to decide any application made under the Act and, (4) to deal with any claim or question arising out of the Act or any of its provisions. Exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and try certain suits, to decide certain applications or to deal with certain claims or questions does not necessarily mean exclusive jurisdiction to decide jurisdictional facts also. Jurisdictional facts have necessarily to be decided by the Court where the jurisdictional question falls to be decided, and the question may fall for decision before the Court of exclusive jurisdiction or before the Court or ordinary jurisdiction. A person claiming to be a landlord may sue his alleged tenant for possession of a building on grounds specified in the Rent Act. Such a suit wil
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =
he question whether there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties or such other jurisdictional questions may have to be determined by the Court where it falls for determination-be it the Court of Small Causes or the ordinary Civil Court. If the jurisdictional question is decided in favour of the Court of exclusive jurisdiction the suit or proceeding before the ordinary Civil Court must cease to the extent its jurisdiction is ousted.
24. In the light of the foregoing discussion and the authority of the precedents, we hold that both by reason of S.28 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 and by reason of the broader considerations of public policy mentioned by us earlier and also in Deccan Merchants Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Dalichand Jugraj Jain & Ors. (supra), the Court of Small Causes has and the Arbitrator has not the jurisdiction to decide the question whether the respondent-licensee-landlord is entitled to seek possession of t
= = = = = = = =
Plain text (Extract) only
For full text:-Visit the Source
= = = = = = = =