BELLISS INDIA LIMITED Vs. RAM CHAND GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of Civil Revision No.3064 of 2006 and Civil Revision No.3065 of 2006 as the parties in both the petitions are the same and the questions of law and fact involved in these petitions are also the same. The facts are taken from Civil Revision No.3064 of 2006. The respondents filed ejectment petition under Section 13 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act,1973 ( in short Rent Act) on the ground of non payment of arrears of rent. The petitioner filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short Act of 1996) in which it was alleged that there were agreements between the parties executed on 16.12.1969 and 1.6.1983. There was an arbitration clause for referring the dispute between the parties to an Arbitrator. There was a dispute between the parties regarding the amounts spent by the petitioners towards white washing and other repairs and that the respondents had failed to install the Rain Harvesting System and, therefore, the matter was referable to the Arbitrator. This application was contested by the respondents. The learned trial Court vide order dated 6.5.2006 dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 8 of the Act of 1996. Hence, the present petition.

(2.) The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner had served legal notice dated 21.4.2003 on the respondents informing them that the petitioner had incurred an amount of 1,06,719/11P upto February, 2003 towards the maintaining and repairing of three sheds in their possession. It was also pointed out that the petitioner had requested the respondents to install Rain Harvesting System which was mandatory under law. It was also of the cost of Rs.1.5 lacs. Hence, a request was made by the petitioner to the respondents for referring the matter to the Arbitrator. Submits that a case for making reference to the Arbitrator was made out and the learned trial Court has gone wrong in dismissing the application. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court reported as Union of India Versus Smt. Lajwant Kaur, 2003(2) P.L.R. 324, judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as P. Anand Gajapathi Raju and others Versus P.V.G.Raju (dead) and others, (2000) 4 Supreme Court Cases 539 and Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. Versus Pinkcity Midway Petroleums (2003) 6 Supreme Court Cases 503. It was submitted that the petition be accepted. On the other hand, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that no such dispute arises between the parties from the agreements which were executed between the parties. Considered.

(3.) Agreement dated 16.12.1969 (Annexure P-1) has arbitration clause. Similarly, clause 9 in the agreement dated 1.6.1983 (Annexure P-2) has also arbitration clause which reads as under;-