Introduction:-
The Supreme Court clarified the interplay between the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, holding that arbitration clauses in valid agreements take precedence in resolving disputes

Facts in a Nutshell
The Appellant, Central Warehousing Corporation, a statutory body under the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962, entered into a lease agreement on 26th September 2012 with the Respondent, M/s Sidhartha Tiles & Sanitary Pvt. Ltd., for storage space. The agreement, valid for three years, included a clause for renewal by mutual consent and incorporated an arbitration clause for resolving disputes.

Disputes arose over the revision of storage charges and the Respondent’s request for renewal of the lease. The lease expired on 11th September 2015, and the Appellant invoked the Public Premises Act to seek eviction and recovery of dues. The Respondent vacated the premises on 13th November 2015 but initiated arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act to resolve disputes arising from the agreement.

Meanwhile, the Appellant initiated proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, contending that the Respondent was in unauthorised occupation. Although the Respondent vacated the premises on 13th November 2015, the arbitration clause was invoked to address the disputes. The High Court appointed an arbitrator under Section 11, dismissing the Appellant’s arguments that the Public Premises Act overrode the Arbitration Act. Dissatisfied, the Appellant challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, which reviewed the case to address the interplay between the two statutes and the High Court’s jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator.

Findings of the Supreme Court and conclusion
The Court clarified that the Public Premises Act primarily addresses the eviction of unauthorised occupants and does not extend to disputes arising from a valid lease agreement. The disputes in question revolved around the interpretation and obligations under the lease, which fell squarely within the ambit of the Arbitration Act. The arbitration clause in the lease agreement was comprehensive, covering "all disputes and differences arising out of or in any way touching upon or concerning this agreement." The Court upheld the High Court’s decision to appoint an arbitrator, affirming that disputes over revised charges and renewal terms were clearly arbitrable. Additionally, referring to SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024 SCC OnLine SC 175), the Court highlighted that the role of the referral court under Section 11 is limited to verifying the prima facie existence of an arbitration agreement, leaving detailed scrutiny of the disputes to the arbitral tribunal. The Court further emphasized that issues such as the legality of revised charges during the lease period and the Respondent’s renewal request were inherently tied to the terms of the agreement and appropriately referred to arbitration¹.

By - Chaitanyaa Bhandarkar