MAHESH CHAND Vs. BASANTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant revisionist made an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the said suit with the allegation that between the parties a rent note had been executed which contained an arbitration clause. Therefore, the suit could not be proceeded with and the dispute referred for arbitration.

(2.) This application was registered as Application No. 26-C. Objections were filed to the application by the plaintiff landlord being Paper No. 50-C. It was stated amongst other that no rent note was executed between the parties in respect of the tenancy in question nor any arbitration was agreed upon. It has also stated that originally the tenancy was in respect of two separate persons entered into in the year 1990 but in the year 1995, a new tenancy was entered into in respect of one shop. This tenancy was created orally and there exists no agreement between the parties for the dispute being referred to arbitration. It was therefore contended that the application made under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act was misconceived.

(3.) Defendant revisionist produced a photocopy of the rent note said to have been signed by the landlord and the lease holders. The rent note contains no date, however, it mentions that the rent of the shop shall be Rs.1400/- per month and shall be for a period of 14 years commencing from 01.03.1990. This rent note contained Clause 14 which according to the applicant was the arbitration clause. It was stated that original rent note was not available with the tenant and, therefore, only photostat copy was filed.