Tenant's Own Plea Of Non-Maintainability Leads To Appointment Of Arbitrator: Karnataka HC

In a tactical reversal that reinforces the binding nature of alternative dispute resolution, the Karnataka High Court has appointed a retired District Judge as an arbitrator after a tenant successfully blocked a civil suit by invoking the arbitration clause in their lease agreement. The decision underscores that once a party contests the maintainability of a civil suit by citing a contractual arbitration mechanism, they cannot subsequently evade the commencement of those very proceedings.

Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad presided over the matter, considering a petition filed by property owners seeking judicial intervention for the appointment of a sole arbitrator to resolve a rental dispute. The Court's intervention was necessitated by the respondent-tenant's failure to respond to the statutory notice invoking the arbitration clause, despite previously asserting the existence of such a clause to derail civil proceedings.

Court Appoints Retired Judge Amidst Rental Dispute

The High Court observed that the existence of an arbitration agreement was undisputed, especially since the respondent had previously relied upon it. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "In view of the above, and having regard to the existence of the arbitration clause contained in Clause 10 of the Lease Agreement dated 25.03.2024, this Court is of the opinion that a Sole Arbitrator is required to be appointed for adjudication of the disputes between the parties."

The Court has following directions:

"a) Petition is allowed.

b) Sri.Ganesh.B, Retired District Judge, is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator in the present case to arbitrate the dispute between the parties at the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Bengaluru, as per the Rules governing the said Arbitration Centre.

c) All the claims and contentions of the parties are kept open.

d) Registry is directed to communicate this order via E-mail to the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre (Domestic & International), Khanija Bhavan, Bengaluru and also to the learned Sole Arbitrator.

e) Registry is directed to return all the original documents produced by any of the parties after obtaining Photostat copies of the same."

Background

The petitioners, owners of a residential flat in Bengaluru, had inducted the respondent as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 23,000. The relationship was governed by a Lease Agreement dated March 25, 2024, which contained a specific arbitration clause under Clause 10 for all disputes arising from the agreement.

Following disputes regarding eviction and arrears of rent, the petitioners initially approached a Civil Court in O.S.No.26085/2024. However, the respondent filed a written statement contending that the suit was not maintainable due to the arbitration clause. Taking note of this, the petitioners withdrew the suit and issued a formal notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on October 10, 2025. Despite proof of service, the respondent neither replied nor participated in the appointment process, leading to the current petition before the High Court under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Court, noting the respondent's absence despite service of court notice, proceeded to allow the petition and formalize the appointment.

Case Details:
Case No.: CMP No. 691 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:48229
Case Title: Mr. Thodukattile Melethil Shashidhar & Anr. v. Mr. Sasi Kumar P
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Sri. M. Vishnu, Advocate for Sri. Aniyan Joseph, Advocate

Source: 2026 CaseBase(KAR) 18488