REHMAT ALI BAIG Vs. MINOCHER M DEBOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from the decision of a Learned Single Judge dated 8 July 2011 in an Arbitration Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The challenge to an arbitral award has failed before the Learned Single Judge.

(2.) The Appellant and the Respondent are coowners of a building in which the share of the Appellant is 42%, while that of the Respondent is 26%. There is a room admeasuring 200 sq.ft. According to the Respondent, who was the claimant in the arbitral proceedings, the Appellant obtained possession of the room from a tenant but sought to exclude the cosharers. The Respondent instituted a suit before this Court for the recovery of a sum of Rs.4,05,600/ as his proportionate share in the value of the premises. The coowners, who were impleaded as parties to the suit, were not appearing. By an order dated 13 October 2006, a Learned Single Judge of this Court recorded that the disputes between the Appellant and the Respondents shall be referred to arbitration by Hon'ble Mr.Justice Hosbet Suresh, former Judge of this Court since parties were agreeable to do so. The Court directed that "the costs of the arbitration shall be borne at the first instance by the Plaintiff, subject to suitable orders that the arbitrator may make".

(3.) The Respondent filed his statement of claim before the Arbitrator and claimed that on the basis of a twenty six per cent share in the property, the prevailing market value of which was stated to be Rs.15.26 lakhs, his share would work out to Rs.4,05,600/. The case of the Respondent was that the Appellant had instituted a suit in the Court of Small Causes against the tenant without the knowledge of the coowners. Subsequently, when the coowners were served with the writ of summons and when they questioned the Respondent, he meted out an assurance in the form of a statement dated 7 August 2001 that the benefits in respect of the suit premises would enure to all the coowners. Subsequently, parties were alleged to have recorded this in an agreement dated 21 August 2001. The Appellant filed a written statement before the arbitral Tribunal and also raised a counter claim. The counter claim was on the basis that the Appellant had incurred legal expenses for obtaining vacant possession of the premises from the tenant.