INDRAJIT SINHA Vs. B L RATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application praying for an interim order of injunction restraining the respondent form taking any steps in the pending proceedings under S. 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 being Matter no 1765 of 1983. The application has been filed by one Indrajit Sinha on the appeal preferred by his against the judgment and order dated February 3, 1984 passed by Pratibha Bannerjee J in the said proceeding under S. 33 of the Arbitration Act, dismissing the application of the appellant praying for stay of the said proceeding under S. 10 and S. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) IT is not disputed that the appellant Indrajit Sinha is the owner of premises no 7/1, Lord Sinha Road, Calcutta. IT is also not in dispute that the respondent B. L. Rathi has been in occupation of apportions of the said premises. On November 19, 1983, the appellant filed a suit being suited No. 124 of 1983 in the City Civil Court, Calcutta against the respondent praying, inter alias, for a declaration that the respondent has no right to change the nature and character of a room and the bath room in the second floor of the said premises and to dispossess the appellant's representative and for a permanent in junction restraining the respondent form changing the nature and character of the said room and the bath room in the second floor of the said premises and to dispossess the appellant's representative and for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from changing the nature and a character of the said room and the bath room and from dispossessing the appellant's representative. IT has been alleged by the appellant in the said suit that the respondent is a licensee of the appellant in respect of one room in the second floor of the said premises. In the said suit, the appellant has placed reliance upon the letter-dated march 31, 1978 purported to have been written by the respondent to the appellant. The letter shows that the respondent has been in occupation of a portion of the said premises as a licensee under the appellant. The letter also contains an arbitrations clause. IT is the case of the appellant that disputes and differences having arisen between the parties, the appellant duly referred the same to the arbitration of one Mr. R.L.Gaggar, Advocate in terms of the arbitration clause in the agreement as contained in the said letter dated March 31, 1978.

(3.) IMMEDIATELY thereafter, the respondent filed an application under S. 33 of the Arbitration Act on December 2, 1983 in this Court. In the said application, it has been alleged by the respondent that he has been in occupation of a portion of the said remises no 7/1, Lord Sinha Road as a tenant of the appellant and not as his licensee. Further, it has been alleged that the first page of the said letter dated March 31, 1978, which has been relied on by the appellant in the suit filed by him in the City Civil Court, Calcutta and a Xerox copy of which has been forwarded to the respondent by the said Mr.R. L. Gaggar, Advocate by his letter dated November 28, 1983, is forged and fabricated inasmuch as the respondent is not a licensee under the appellant. Further, there is no existence of any arbitration agreement between the parties. Which has been included in the first page of the said letter. The respondent has also annoyed a true copy of the letter dated March 31, 1978 to the application under S. 33 of the Arbitration Act. The said letter shows that the respondent is a tenant under the appellant, and that there is no arbitration clause. Accordingly, it has been prayed by the respondent as follows: