JUDGMENT : Goutam Bhaduri, J. Heard. 1. The present petition is against the order dated 03.08.2022 passed by the Rent Control Tribunal, Raipur wherein the order dated 18.03.2019 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Rent Control Authority, Bilaspur was set aside and the case was remanded back to Rent Control Authority to adjudicate afresh. 2. The brief facts of this case are that :- An application was filed before the Rent Control Authority by respondent herein being the landlord under Section 12 (2), Schedule 2 serial 11 (g) of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011 (henceforth 'the Act, 2011') that the tenant after notice has not vacated the premises and further claim was also made for the arrears of rent. After notice the tenant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 on the ground that the agreement of tenancy contains an arbitration clause and accordingly on earlier point of time, Arbitrator has passed an award which was acted upon by the parties. Therefore, the dispute even for vacating the premises is an arbitrable one, the petition before the Rent Control Authority would not lie. The Rent Control Authority upheld the objection & dismissed the application filed by the landlord on the ground that the agreement of tenancy contains an arbitration clause and therefore the dispute would be arbitrable. Against that the landlord filed an appeal before the Rent Control Tribunal under C.G. Rent Control Act, 2011. The, Rent Control Tribunal remanded the case back by setting aside the order by holding that the tenancy disputes when are governed by the special statue it would not be arbitrable. Against this the instant petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the tenancy agreement which was executed initially contains an arbitration clause which includes that even for seeking eviction of the premises, it would be the Arbitrator who would decide the lis. He would further submit that as per the agreement subsequently some dispute arose and an award was passed and according to the award amendment of the initial agreement of tenancy was executed and according to it the tenancy would be from 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2026. He would further submit that it was consented by both the parties and subsequent thereto the petitioner is paying the rent. He would further submit that it was consented by both the parties and subsequent thereto the petitioner is paying the rent. He further submit that the tenancy agreement in uninvocable terms contains the arbitration clause, therefore, the dispute to get the premises vacated would be out of the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Authority and it would be an arbitrable dispute. He would submit that the learned Tribunal has misdirected itself to apply the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Drolia s. Durga Trading Corporation reported in AIRONLINE 2020 SC 929 and the ratio would not support the finding. Therefore, wrong finding has been arrived at by misinterpretation of law. He further placed his reliance in the case of Brij Raj Oberoi Vs. Secretary, Tourism And Civil Aviation Department reported in LAWS(SC)-2022-8-61 and would submit ratio decided in both the cases would go to show that the dispute of like nature cannot be directly brought before the Rent Control Authority and the order of the Rent Control Authority was correct and submit that the order of Rent Control Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit the parties cannot chose their forum for applicability of certain law. He further refers to the ratio laid down in Vidya Drolia (supra) and would submit that for decisions in disputes between the landlord and tenancy since special forum exists, the dispute cannot be made arbitrable as the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (for short 'Act of 1996' also carves out the applicability of the law as per section 2 (3) of the Act, 1996 . He also refers to the case of Supdt. of Taxes, Dhubri and Ors. Vs. M/s. Onkarmal Nathmal Trust reported in AIR 1975 SC 2065 and submit that when the statute confers the jurisdiction it cannot be waived or created by consent. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. The C.G. Rent Control Act, 2011 received its assent of the President on the 5th October, 2012 and Governor on the 23rd May, 2011, published in the C.G. Rajpatra (Asadharan dated the 6th November, 2012). The Act was promulgated to provide for adjudication of matters relating to rent by special terms and was meant to promote leasing of accommodation by balancing the interests of landlords and tenants. The Act was promulgated to provide for adjudication of matters relating to rent by special terms and was meant to promote leasing of accommodation by balancing the interests of landlords and tenants. By such act a parsimonious chance of flashing smiles of landlords is created and is balanced with twin need of both. 7. Section 12 (2) of the Act of 2011 purports that every landlord shall have rights according to Schedule 2 and the Tribunal and Rent Controller shall act at all times to secure to the landlord these rights. Schedule 2 is made under Section 12 (2) of the Act of 2011. The serial No. 11 (a) and (g) for which the application was filed by the landlord before the Rent Control Authority provide that the eviction can be sought by the landlord, if the tenant is a habitual defaulter in payment of rent and/ or other dues and the other is after service of notice of 3 months notice in writing, if the accommodation is not vacated and is required for own occupation and/ or occupation by any member of the family including spouse, parent(s) , son(s), daughter, daughter(s)- in-law, son(s)-in-law. 8. For sake of brevity section 12 (2) and Schedule 2 (11) (a) and (g) of the of the C.G. Rent control Act, 2011 is reproduced herein below :- 12. Rights and Obligations of Landlords and tenants - 1) XXX 2) Every landlord shall have rights according to Schedule 2. The Tribunal and Rent Controller shall act at all times to secure to the landlord these rights : Provided that- (a) In case of any clash of interests of the landlord and the tenant, and/or any point of doubt in respect of matters relating to rent, the benefit thereof shall be granted to the tenant. (b) In case of any clash of interests of the landlord and the tenant, and/or any point of doubt in respect of matters relating to returning possession of the accommodation to the tenant, benefit thereof shall be granted to the landlord. Schedule 2 Landlord's Rights available under the Act 11. Right to seek from the rent Controller eviction of the tenant on the following grounds :- a. If the tenant is a habitual defaulter in payment of rent and/ or other dues. Schedule 2 Landlord's Rights available under the Act 11. Right to seek from the rent Controller eviction of the tenant on the following grounds :- a. If the tenant is a habitual defaulter in payment of rent and/ or other dues. b. XXX c. XXX d. XXX e. XXX f. XXX g. On 3 months notice to the tenant in writing, if the accommodation is required for own occupation and/ or occupation by any member of the family including spouse, parent(s), son(s), daughter, daughter(s)-in-law, son(s)-in-law. 9. The tenancy agreement in this case contains an arbitration clause. Reading of the clause 14 purports that it includes the dispute when the landlord seeks eviction of the tenant and it further says that it would be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The C.G. Rent Control Act of 2011, which is a subsequent legislation and is meant for a particular object was promulgated in the background of the fact that earlier Rent Control Act which was prevailing in the state of C.G. the Act of C.G. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 has lost its efficacy and completely held its sway in favour of the tenants, therefore, it was thought proper to bring a new legislation as C.G. Rent Control Act, 2011 to strike a balance. Any proceeding by land-lord seeking eviction of tenant was a tale bound to be rather somnolent, as such a new legislation was brought. 10. Section 2 (3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short Act of 1996) carves out and read that the part shall not affect any other law for the time being in force by virtue of which certain disputes may not be submitted to arbitration. Therefore, the object of the Act of 2011 when are read with Section 2 (3 ) of the Act of 1996, it do not give an over riding effect rather is the operation has been made separate. Therefore, the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would not have a domino effect on other law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vidya Drolia (supra) while deciding the similar nature of lis has held that landlord-tenant disputes covered and governed by the rent control legislation would not be arbitrable when specific court or forum has been given exclusive jurisdiction to apply and decide special rights and obligations. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vidya Drolia (supra) while deciding the similar nature of lis has held that landlord-tenant disputes covered and governed by the rent control legislation would not be arbitrable when specific court or forum has been given exclusive jurisdiction to apply and decide special rights and obligations. Such rights and obligations can only be adjudicated and enforced by the specified court/ forum, and not through arbitration. 11. Para 49 of the Vidya Drolia (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow:- 49. In view of the aforesaid, we overrule the ratio laid down in Himangni Enterprises and hold that landlord-tenant disputes are arbitrable as the Transfer of Property Act does not forbid or foreclose arbitration. However, landlord-tenant disputes covered and governed by rent control legislation would not be arbitrable when specific court or forum has been given exclusive jurisdiction to apply and decide special rights and obligations. Such rights and obligations can only be adjudicated and enforced by the specified court/forum, and not through arbitration. 12. The Act of 2011 would show that Section 7 speaks about establishment of Rent Controller that for every district, the State Government shall appoint Rent Controller and Section 6 is about constitution of Rent Control Tribunal. Therefore, special forum has been created to decide the rights and obligations of landlord and tenant which is enveloped under Section 12 of the Act of 2011, wherein Schedule 2 purports about landlord rights which includes the right to seek eviction of the tenant on various grounds likewise schedule 4 which is made of Section 12 (4) of the Act 2011 creates an obligation on the part of the tenant. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in case of Brij Raj Oberoi (supra) would not be of any help for the reason that obligation of the tenant under Schedule 4 under the Act of 2011 do not confer seeking an enhancement for the part of tenancy. Therefore, on facts of the case, when eviction is sought for by land-lord against tenant the ratio of the case supra would not be applicable. 13. Therefore, the forum having been created under the statue and it being a special legislature for particular purpose this statue provision cannot be diluted by the act of parties as has been held in the case of Supdt. of Taxes, Dhubri and Ors. Vs. 13. Therefore, the forum having been created under the statue and it being a special legislature for particular purpose this statue provision cannot be diluted by the act of parties as has been held in the case of Supdt. of Taxes, Dhubri and Ors. Vs. M/s. Onkarmal Nathmal Trust reported in AIR 1975 SC 2065 and further in the case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs. D. L. F. Universal Ltd. and another reported in AIR 2005 SC 4446 :: 2005 AIR SCW 5369 while deciding the jurisdiction of the court has held that jurisdiction can neither be waived nor created by consent. 14. For ready reference the principles laid down by the Supreme Court at paras 27, 28 & 29 in the case of Supdt. of Taxes (supra) are reproduced herein under :- 27. A distinction arises between the provision which confer jurisdiction and provisions which regulate procedure. Jurisdiction can neither be waived nor created by consent. A procedural provision may be waived by conduct or agreement. In the case of Kammins Ball rooms Co., 1971 AC 850 (supra) it was said that waiver arises in a situation where a person is entitled to alternative rights inconsistent with one another. If he has knowledge of the facts which give rise in law to these alternative rights and acts in a manner which is inconsistent only with his having chosen to rely on one of them, the law holds him to his choice even though he was unaware that this would be legal consequence of what he did. He is sometimes said to have "waived"' the alternative right, as for instance a right to forfeit a lease or to rescind a contract of sale for wrongful repudiation or breach of condition. This is also sometimes described as "election" rather than "waive ?. Another type of waiver debars a person from raising a particular defence to a claim against him. It arises when he either agrees with the claimant not to raise that particular defence or so conducts himself as to be estopped from raising it. 28. In the present case, the respondent cannot be said to have waived the provisions of the statute. There cannot be any waiver of a statutory requirement or provision which goes to the jurisdiction, of assessment. 28. In the present case, the respondent cannot be said to have waived the provisions of the statute. There cannot be any waiver of a statutory requirement or provision which goes to the jurisdiction, of assessment. The origin of the assessment is either an assessee filing a return as contemplated in the Act or an assessee being called upon to file a return as contemplated in the Act. The respondents challenged the Act. The order of injunction does not amount to a waiver of the statutory provisions. The issue of a notice under the provisions of the Act relates to the exercise of jurisdiction under the Act in all cases. Revenue statutes are based on public policy. Revenue statutes protect the public on the one hand and confer power on the State on the other. 29. The decision in William Shepard v. O.E.D. Barron (1908) 194 U.S. 558=48 L. Ed. 1115 on which the Solicitor General relied for the proposition that the Constitutionality of a rule of assessment can be waived does not have any application in the present case. In the American decision (supra) an objection against, the frontage rule of assessment for a public improvement, prescribed by the State laws, was not allowed to be urged to defeat the collection of the assessments. The reason was that the abutting owners who petitioned for the improvement under the Act, actively participated in carrying out the work, recognized the justice of the assessments from time to time during its progress, and signed a statement for the purpose of inducing the issuance and purchase of country improvement bonds to the effect that the work had been properly done. In the American decision (supra) the work was done at the instance and request of. the owners. The Court found an implied contract arising from facts that the party at whose request and for whose benefit the work had been done would pay for it in the manner provided for by the Act under which the work was done. 15. Having considered these facts as special Act exists even in the agreement though the arbitration clause exist, it would not take away the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Authority which is conferred under the Act of 2011. 16. In view of this, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Rent Control Tribunal. 17. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.