JUDGMENT Dr.A.K.RATH, J. - This petition challenges the order of the learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur in C.R.No. 02 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the revisional court refused to grant stay of further proceeding of C.S. No. 153 of 2005 pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jagatsinghpur. 02. This case has a chequered history. The plaintiff-opposite party no.1 has instituted the suit for eviction of the defendants. Pursuant to issuance of summons, defendants entered contest and filed a written statement. Evidence from the side of the plaintiff is closed. One of the witnesses from the side of the defendants has been examined. While matter stood thus, defendant no.3-petitioner herein, filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC to reject the plaint on the ground that the plaintiff is a co-operative society governed under the Odisha Co-operative Societies Act, 1962 (in short, “the Act”) and Rules framed thereunder. Under the provisions of the said Act and Rules, there is a specific provision for realisation of dues belonging to co-operative societies by filing a dispute before the Arbitrator. The Act is a special statute. The jurisdiction of civil court is barred by law. The said application having been rejected, the plaintiff approached this Court. Subsequently, he withdrew the petition and filed a revision before the learned District Judge. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned District Judge did not grant stay of further proceeding of the suit. 03. Mr. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of Sec.68 of the Act, the suit is not maintainable. There is a house rent agreement. Clause 12 of the agreement provides that any disputes arises therefrom shall be referred to the arbitrator for adjudication. Learned District Judge is not justified in not granting stay of further proceeding of the suit. 04. Per contra, Mr. Mukherji, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 supports the impugned order. 05. Sec.68 of the Act, which is the hub of the issue, is quoted hereunder:- “68. Learned District Judge is not justified in not granting stay of further proceeding of the suit. 04. Per contra, Mr. Mukherji, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 supports the impugned order. 05. Sec.68 of the Act, which is the hub of the issue, is quoted hereunder:- “68. Disputes which may be referred to arbitration – Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any dispute touching the constitution, management or the business of a Society, other than a dispute required to be referred to the Tribunal and a dispute required to be adjudicated under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (and a dispute relating to non-payment of contribution to the Cooperative Education Fund referred to in Sub-section(3) of Section 56) shall be referred to the Registrar if the parties thereto are among the following, namely: (a) the Society, its Committee, past Committee, any past or present Officer or office-bearer, any past or present agent, any past or present servant or the nominee, legal heir or representative of any deceased Officer, office-bearer, deceased agent or deceased servant of the Society; or (b) a member, past member, or a person claiming through a member, past member or deceased member of the Society, or of a Society which is a member of the Society; or (c) a surety of a member, past member or a deceased member, whether such surety is or is not a member of the Society; or (d) any other Society. xxx xxx xxx.” 06. Sec.68 of the Act contains a non-obstante clause. The dispute touching the constitution and management or the business of the Society shall be referred to the Registrar, if the parties thereto are among mentioned in clauses (a) to (d). The instant dispute does not come within the ambit of Sec.68 of the Act. Admittedly, the plaintiff is the landlord. Defendants are the tenants. Such dispute cannot be adjudicated by the arbitrator of the Co-operative Societies. The civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The jurisdiction of the civil court is not barred in the Act. 07. The next question crops up as to whether the arbitrator has jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the landlord and the tenant ? 08. The subject-matter of dispute is no more res integra. The civil court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The jurisdiction of the civil court is not barred in the Act. 07. The next question crops up as to whether the arbitrator has jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the landlord and the tenant ? 08. The subject-matter of dispute is no more res integra. An identical matter came up for consideration before the apex Court in the case of Natraj Studios (P) Ltd.vs.Navrang Studios, 1981 (1) SCC 523 . In the said case, the landlord instituted a civil suit against the tenant in the Small Causes Court, Bombay for eviction from the leased premises. The tenant was inducted pursuant to “leave and license” agreement executed between the landlord and tenant. The tenant filed an application under Sec.8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 stating therein that since the “leave and license” agreement contained an arbitration clause, the dispute could be resolved by the arbitrator. The civil suit was not maintainable. The apex Court held that the disputes of such a nature cannot be referred to the arbitrator. The civil suit filed by the landlord was maintainable. 09. In Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc.v. SBI Home Finance Ltd., (2011) 5 SCC 532 , the apex Court went in-depth into the matter and laid down the following proposition of law:- “36. The well-recognised examples of non-arbitrable disputes are:(i) disputes relating to rights and liabilities which give rise to or arise out of criminal offences; (ii) matrimonial disputes relating to divorce, judicial separation, restitution of conjugal rights, child custody;(iii) guardianship matters;(iv) insolvency and winding-up matters; (v) testamentary matters (rant of probate, letters of administration and succession certificate); and (vi) eviction or tenancy matters governed by special statutes where the tenant enjoys statutory protection against eviction and only the specified courts are conferred jurisdiction to grant eviction or decide the disputes.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the apex Court in the decisions cited supra, the inescapable conclusion is that the dispute between the landlord and the tenant cannot be decided by the arbitrator. Even if there is an arbitration clause in the agreement, the civil court has jurisdiction to decide the same. 11. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the petition, C.R. No. 02 of 2017 pending before the learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur is also dismissed. Learned trial court shall proceed with the matter. Even if there is an arbitration clause in the agreement, the civil court has jurisdiction to decide the same. 11. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the petition, C.R. No. 02 of 2017 pending before the learned District Judge, Jagatsinghpur is also dismissed. Learned trial court shall proceed with the matter. It is open to the defendants to adduce evidence. Learned trial judge shall conclude the hearing of the suit by end of February, 2019 positively. Petition dismissed.