Short Note : 1. The plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction against the defendants on the grounds under section 12(1) (a) and (c) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. The defendants filed an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act contending that the suit cannot proceed in view of the Arbitration clause in the lease deed. The trial Court stayed the suit. Held : After hearing the parties, this Court is of the opinion that this appeal has to be allowed and the order of the trial Court cannot be sustained. The original lease was from 25-5-67 till 24-5-72 and even if the defendants were tenants holding over under section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, still the tenancy would not be governed as per the terms of the original lease. However, the lower Court, after holding that the continuation of the tenancy due to holding over is not a continuation of the original lease, but still held that the Arbitration clause would be applicable. The original lease having expired, the arbitration clause was no longer in force and there is no question of invoking the arbitration clause regarding the dispute in the present as it pertains to period after the expiry of the lease. 2. Section 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law or contract, no suit shall be filed in any Civil Court against a tenant for his eviction from any accommodation except on one or more of the grounds enumerated under it. The defendant could, therefore be evicted only on proof of one of the grounds contained in sub-section (1) of the section 12 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. No agreement or any arbitration agreement contrary to section 12 could be enforced. The suit in the instant case is for eviction of the non applicant and as already pointed out the eviction was only permissible on any of the grounds mentioned in M.P. Accommodation Control Act which was entirely outside the scope of arbitration agreement. The main dispute in this case, therefore, was outside the scope of arbitration. Bahadursingh and another v. Muni Subratdas, All India Rent Control Journal page 276, M/s. Mahakoshal Roller or flour Mills v. Ravilal, C. Revn No. 686 of 1974 decided on 31-3-75 relied on. Appeal allowed.