Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

"Landlord-Tenant Disputes are Arbitrable," Declares Punjab and Haryana High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a decisive ruling yesterday, the Punjab and Haryana High Court cleared the air around the arbitrability of landlord-tenant disputes. Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill observed that such disputes can be settled through arbitration, further emphasizing that the "matter basically is in the nature of a landlord/tenant dispute." This observation is aligned with the precedent set by the Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Drolia and others Vs. Durga Trading Corporation.

The petition was filed by Mala Kshetrapal through her attorney Kanwal Preet Singh Bindra against Gunveen Singh, under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioner sought the appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute.

Despite several notices, the respondent could not be served. However, the court found that the respondent was "duly served" via a member of his family and electronic means, as provided under Order 5 Rule 15 CPC. "In view of the aforesaid provisions and also the fact that respondent has also been physically served, and none has appeared on behalf of the respondent, the respondent is proceeded against ex parte," said the judgment.

The Court appointed Shri R.S. Virk, District and Sessions Judge (Retd.), as the sole Arbitrator, subject to his declaration under Section 12 of the Act concerning his independence and impartiality. The Arbitrator will be paid as per the Fourth Schedule of the Act or as mutually decided by the parties.

Justice Gill directed the parties to appear before the Arbitrator at the Arbitration Centre in Chandigarh on September 30, 2023, at 11:00 A.M. or any other date suitable to all concerned.

This ruling provides a framework for similar landlord-tenant disputes, endorsing the use of arbitration for quicker and perhaps more efficient resolution.

Date of Decision: 15.09.2023

Mala Kshetrapal Through Attorney Kanwal Preet Singh Bindra vs Gunveen Singh          

Latest Legal News