VIJAY KUMAR JAIN Vs. BABY CARE MKTG COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Petitioner who is the owner of factory No. A-52, Group Industrial Area, Wazirpur, Delhi -52, submits that there was a commission agreement between the parties on 01.07.1977. That was subsequently renewed in July 1, 1983. The first respondent is a partnership firm. Respondents 2 and 3 are the partners. On the strength of the commission agreement the petitioner has been receiving commission and the first respondent has been carrying on business in the premises is the case of the petitioner. When the petitioner demanded a possession according to him the first respondent set up a case of tenancy and, therefore, he is obliged to file this petition seeking an appointment of the arbitrator, to adjudicate upon the disputes. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the first respondent cannot claim to be a tenant in the premises.

(2.) Per cantra the first respondent submits that on a true construction of an agreement the jural relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent is that of landlord and tenant and therefore, what is being paid Rs. 2400.00 per month is only as rent and the first respondent is protected by the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 and therefore, the clause relating to the arbitration in the agreement becomes unenforceable.

(3.) I do not want to go into the question about jural relationship between the parties because that is not the function of the court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Mr. Gupta learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the only question the petitioner wants the arbitrator to decide is the correct relationship between the petitioner and the first respondent on a correct interpretation of the terms of the agreement. He submits that the petitioner does not want the arbitrator to go into the question of possession.