The appellant and the tenant entered into a tenancy agreement for a period of 10 years on 02.02.2006. The subject matter contains certain godowns and other structures. After the expiry of the period mentioned in the agreement, the appellants were required to deliver the possession of the property to the landlords and this must be done peacefully. If any dispute arises in between the landlord and the tenant, then it must be taken to the arbitrator. The agreement also mentions the number of judges to resolve the dispute. Even after the period of 10 years was over, the tenant did not vacate the place as mentioned in the agreement. So, as per the clause mentioned the landlord had to move forward with the arbitration process. The landlord by an application requested the High Court of Calcutta to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996.

On the application by the landlord the tenant objected that the matter is not arbitral. The High Court of Calcutta appoints arbitration. The High Court rejected the objection filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act as well as review and recall application by the tenant.

The Supreme Court in this case held that, landlord and tenant disputes are arbitral except when they are covered by other rent law. It was further held that award passed by the arbitration tribunals executed and enforced is same as a decree executed by a Civil Court. It is also stated that these disputes are governed and covered by the legislations. The same has no meaning of arbitral resolution when falls under the jurisdiction of any court or forum and the court has the exclusive rights and obligations to adjudicate, decide and enforce. The court further laid down the four-fold to test the arbitrability.