BHARTI INFRATEL LTD Vs. RAM GOPQL TRIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966 (Arbitration Act) is directed against the impugned order dated 27.1.2011 passed by the Court below as well as the award dated 23.3.2010.

(2.) Shri Deepak Khot, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellant is not challenging the portion of the award and the appellate order to the extent the Arbitrator and the appellate Court had given finding that contract needs to be cancelled. In other words, Shri Khot, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellantCompany is not aggrieved by the finding of the Arbitrator and the Appellate Court in as much as the contract is held to be terminated because of non payment of considerations in time. He submits that the appellant is aggrieved only with the direction whereby the Arbitrator had directed for removal of the tower from the roof of the original applicant's house. To assail this portion, the appellant submits that the provisions of M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 would be applicable in the present case. The agreement dated 8th September, 2004 makes it crystal clear that it was an agreement for rent. The accommodation in which tower was installed, falls within the definition of "accommodation" under the Accommodation Control Act.

(3.) By taking this Court to various provisions of the Accommodation Control Act, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Accommodation Control Act will hold the field and, therefore, even assuming that contract was rightly terminated by the Arbitrator and upheld by the Appellate Court, removal of tenant can be done only by way of methodology prescribed under the Accommodation Control Act. In other words, Shri Khot submits that Section 12 of the Accommodation Control Act provides consideration on which eviction can be prayed for. If something is prescribed in law, it has to be done in the same manner. Thus, it is contended that the Arbitrator has exceeded his jurisdiction in directing the eviction of the appellant which is beyond the terms of the agreement.