LAKSHMI RAUSCHENBACH Vs. VALUESOURCE TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Original Side intra-court Appeal is filed by the Petitioner in O.P.11 of 2010, as against the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2013 passed in O.P.No.11 of 2010, whereby, the Petitioner's challenge to the Award of the Arbitrator dated 27.08.2009 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996, was dismissed, by the learned Single Judge.

(2.) The facts of the case is that the appellant/Lakshmi Rauschenbach and the 1st respondent M/s.Valuesource Technologies (P) Ltd., entered into an agreement of lease in respect of the property bearing Door No.1, Swathi Ceebros Residential Complex, Raja Rangasamy Avenue, Yedediar Enclave, Valmiki Nagar, Chennai-600041.

(3.) The learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Award passed by the 2nd respondent/Arbitrator is against the Public Policy and also the Principles of Substantive law. Both the parties entered into an agreement and agreed that after termination of the lease, the building had to be handed over in good condition and the 1 st respondent, admittedly, in this case, during the end of the lease period, sent a letter expressing his intention to vacate the building when the lease period came to an end on 31.08.2005. The Power Agent of the appellant inspected the leased premises and found that building was not in good condition and it was in damaged condition including the fixtures and fittings. Therefore, the Power Agent of the appellant asked the 1 st respondent to carry out the repair work and handover the premises. The 1st respondent also agreed and he was retaining the possession to carry out the repair work. Possession of the premises was not handed over in good condition as per the agreement, on 31.08.2005; repair work was carried out till January 2006. Even after a reasonable period, the building was not handed over to the appellant. Therefore, the appellant sent a letter to the 1st respondent stating to handover the possession on 27.01.2006 and she agreed to take the possession. When the possession was taken on 27.01.2006, it was found that there were still some repair work not carried out to the satisfaction of the appellant. Therefore, the appellant deducted Rs.2,75,000/- by way of rent for overstayal beyond the termination of lease period which came to an end on 31.08.2005. Since the possession was handed over by the 1st respondent only on 27.01.2006 and further not being satisfied with the repair work carried out as far as buildings, fixtures and fittings are concerned, the appellant further deducted Rs.1,00,000/- for the damages. So, according to the learned Senior counsel for the appellant, deductions have been made as per the agreement and as per Section 108 of The Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The 1 st respondent had no grievance for invoking the Arbitration clause and accordingly, as per the agreement and the direction of the Court, the 2 nd respondent Arbitrator was appointed. However, the 2nd respondent Arbitrator failed to consider Clause 5 of the agreement and Section 108(m) and (q) of the Transfer of Property Act and passed the Award.