DAYAL CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revision Nos. 845, 846 and 847 of 1969. The facts in all these petitioners are similar and it is for that reason that they will be disposed of by a single judgment. These petitioners are directed against the order of the learned District Judge affirming on appeal the decision of the trial Court in an application under Sections 11, 12 and 30 of the Indian Arbitration Act. The applicants are lessees from the Estate Officer, Chandigarh. The lease deeds were executed on the 22nd of January, 1957, and were for a period of 11 months. In all these lease deeds, clause 13 is the arbitration clause on the basis of which the entire controversy had arisen in the Courts below as well as before us. It is common ground that there was no fresh agreement of lease executed after the expiry of the period of lease, that is, 11 months, but the lessees continued to hold over. The Estate Officer decided in the year 1965 to eject the lessees under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act after terminating the tenancy. When these notices were issued to the lessees they invoked clause 13 of the original leases and asked that the disputes relating to the termination of their tenancy, should be referred to arbitration. Their case was that at the time of auction of these leases in the year 1957, there was a term of the auction that those who were the successful bidders would be given priority when similar leases were to be auctioned when the new bus stand was erected in Section 17. This bus stand was erected in the year 1962 and as they had not been given that option, they were entitled to an alternative accommodation before they were evicted. The Estate Officer agreed that the dispute be referred to arbitration and it was referred to the arbitration of the Chief Administrator, however, obtained legal opinion and the Law Department gave the option that under the terms of the lease, such a reference was not competent. Therefore, he declined to enter upon the reference. This led to the present application under Sections 11, 12 and 30 of the Arbitration Act. This application was opposed by the Estate Officer. It is of interest to note that the stand taken up b the Estate Officer in the first instance was that as the award had been given, no reference was competent. But in view of the fat that the other party was not given notice of the arbitration proceedings, the stand was shifted and now the stands is that there was no arbitration agreement at all and, therefore, there was no question of any reference being made to the Chief Administrator. The Controversy that was before the trial Court is well indicated by the issues that were framed. The issues are as follows : 1. Whether the agreement between the parties to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator was not valid ?

(2.) WHAT is the effect of the reference of the disputes to the Arbitrator ?

(3.) WHETHER the reference was made under mistake of law ?