JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Amendment carried out as per order on 8.6.2017. 2. Heard finally by consent. 3. There is no doubt about the fact that the lease deed dated 22.5.2013 contains an arbitration clause. But, a serious objection as to the validity of this clause has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, the lessee, on the ground that it is inconsistent with Section 41 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887 (for short, “Act, 1887”). Of course, learned counsel for the applicant, the lessor, has a different opinion in the matter, for he relies upon the provisions of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (for short, “Rent Act”) contending that the paid up share capital of the respondent is more than Rs.1/crore and, therefore, suit cannot be brought under the provisions of the Rent Act and so only option left is to have the arbitrator appointed in the matter. 4. The dispute between the parties relates to recovery of possession of the tenanted premises as well as recovery of the rents and other charges. Initially, it was sought to be contended on behalf of the respondent, the lessee, that there was no dispute at all, but I begged to differ with him. There have been certain demands made by the applicant, the lessor, from the respondent which have been disputed by the respondent. Those demands related to vacating of the tenanted premises, payment of rent, refusal of the request of the respondent to adjust the arrears of rent against the security deposit held by the applicant and disputing of the claim of the applicant by the respondent regarding some more charges. So, it cannot be said that there is no dispute between the parties. But, as stated earlier, this dispute basically takes within its fold a disagreement between the parties regarding vacating of the premises, the date of vacating of the premises, the payment of rent and adjustment of arrears of rent against the security deposit. Therefore, this dispute, would be the one which finds a secure place in Section 41 of the Act, 1887. 5. Therefore, this dispute, would be the one which finds a secure place in Section 41 of the Act, 1887. 5. Section 41 of the Act, 1887, provides that the suits or proceedings between the licensors and licensees or landlords and tenants for recovery of possession of immovable property, licence fee or rent or other charges arising there from shall be exclusively entertained and tried by the Court of Small Causes established under this Act. By an amendment moved on 1st March, 1984 by the State of Maharashtra, this Act was made applicable to more places outside Mumbai and one of those places is Nagpur, as a result of which, even in Nagpur a Small Cause Court came to be established. In the case of Central Warehousing Corporation vs. Fortpoint Automotive Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2010(1) ALL MR 497, full bench of this Court has taken a view that when exclusive jurisdiction to try and entertain such kind of dispute has been conferred by Section 41 of the Act, 1887 upon a Court of Small Cause, such dispute would only be triable by that Court and no other forum. The full bench also held that exclusivity of the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Cause cannot be taken away by agreement between the parties. The principle being that there can be no modification of law by a contract between the parties. So, the dispute involved in the present case can be entertained and tried only by a Small Cause Court which is already available in Nagpur. 6. Section 33 of the Rent Act also provides that such a dispute as the one herein would have to be tried by a Court established under the provisions of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. This being so, I am of the view that Section 3 of the Rent Act would have no application to the facts of the present case. 7. Once it is found that the dispute involved in this case, which arises out of the claims based upon the rights and obligations of the parties under the arbitration agreement, is exclusively triable by the Court of Small Cause, Nagpur, the arbitration clause contained in the agreement would be rendered invalid and cannot be given effect to following the law laid down by full bench of this Court in the case of Central Warehousing Corporation (supra). Thus, I find that although there is a dispute between the parties, same cannot be said to be arbitrable and the redressal for the same would have to be obtained by resorting to a remedy provided under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887. The application, therefore, deserves to be rejected. 8. The application stands rejected. 9. The parties to bear their own costs. 10. Rule is discharged.