Forcible Eviction Disputes Not Arbitrable Despite Existence Of Arbitration Clause In Lease Agreement: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that disputes relating to eviction of a tenant are not arbitrable even where the lease agreement contains an arbitration clause and that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be ousted by such non-arbitrable reliefs. Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed while allowing an Original Petition filed by a retired Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (“BSNL”)...
The Kerala High Court has held that disputes relating to eviction of a tenant are not arbitrable even where the lease agreement contains an arbitration clause and that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be ousted by such non-arbitrable reliefs.
Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed while allowing an Original Petition filed by a retired Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd (“BSNL”) employee challenging an order of the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, which had referred the dispute to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act").
Background:
A.K.Sukumaran (“Petitioner”), a retired BNSL employee, had instituted a suit seeking injunction restraining the BSNL from evicting from a residential place leased to him. BNSL filed an application under section 8 of the Arbitration Act seeking reference to arbitration based on the arbitration clause contained in the lease agreement.
The application was allowed by the I Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam and the matter was referred to arbitration. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner had approached the High Court. The petitioner argued that the matter falling outside the scope of arbitration cannot be referred to arbitration even if the agreement contains an arbitration clause.
It was further submitted that the main relief sought in the suit that is protection against eviction was non arbitrable and such relief can only be granted by a Civil Court.
Findings:
Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc., the court reiterated that an arbitral tribunal is not competent to decide eviction related disputes. It further observed that even if an incidental relief like determination of rent may be arbitrable that does not make the main relief of protection against forcible eviction arbitrable.
“As regards the forceful eviction is concerned, the Arbitral Tribunal cannot go into that aspect in view of the dictum laid down in the decision cited supra. Here the question is whether the petitioner's apprehension of forceful eviction which the defendants are not entitled to do is genuine or not and the petitioner is entitled to get a decree for the same, to that extent, the jurisdiction of the civil court is not ousted by the arbitration clause and the court below should not have allowed the application as such closing the suit referring the matter to arbitration as such.”, the court held.
Where reliefs are severable and the main relief is non arbitrable, the matter cannot be referred to arbitration under section 8 by divesting the Civil Court of its jurisdiction, the court held.
It observed:
“If the reliefs are severable in nature and the main relief cannot be considered by the arbitral tribunal, then civil courts jurisdiction is not ousted. In such circumstances, Section 8(2) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act is not applicable to divest the jurisdiction to arbitral tribunal which has no jurisdiction to decide that issue.”
Accordingly, the court set aside the impugned order holding that the jurisdiction of the civil court cannot be ousted by referring non arbitrable matter to arbitration even if the agreement contains an arbitration clause.
Case Title: A.K.Sukumaran Vs. Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 851
Case Number: OP(C) No. 3242 Of 2016
Order Date: 18/12/2025
For Petitioner: By Advs. Dr.V.N.Sankarjee Shri.V.N.Madhusudanan Sri.M.K.Sidhan Smt.M.Suseela Smt.R.Udaya Jyothi Sri.M.M.Vinod