1. This Constitutional petition assails an order dated 28.03.2017, passed by learned Special Judge Rent, Lahore, in an ejectment petition filed by the petitioners, whereby an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, filed by the respondents, was allowed.
2. 2.The necessary facts of the case are that, the petitioners, as per record, leased out the demise premises to the Respondent No. 2 under a lease agreement; that the respondent-tenant committed default in payment of monthly rent whereupon the petitioner filed an enactment petition. The respondent-tenant invoking the provision of settlement of disputes, filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, praying therein, that there is arbitration clause in the main lease agreement, therefore the matter should firstly be decided by the arbitrator and till then the proceedings in the enactment petition be stayed. The application was contested by the petitioners/landlord on the ground, that in the rent matter, even if the arbitration clause is part of the lease agreement, the matter cannot be referred for arbitration.
3. 3.The learned Special Judge Rent, Lahore after hearing the arguments of the parties, allowed the application vide impugned order and stayed the proceedings of enactment petition.
4. 4.Heard. Record perused.
5. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, the record was perused. Admittedly, the lease agreement, which governs the affairs of the parties, contains clause 18, whereby in case of any dispute, the matter is to be referred to the arbitrators for amicable settlement of disputes. Further, as recorded by the learned Special Judge Rent, already an arbitration suit is pending between the parties in the Civil Court. Therefore, in my opinion, learned Special Judge Rent has rightly accepted the application under Section 34 of the Act ibid and no illegality has been committed.
5. 6.Resultant, this writ petition has no force and same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.