LAWS(J&K)-1986-6-2

GHULAM HASSAN DAR Vs. CONTROLLER OF AERODROME

Decided On June 27, 1986
GHULAM HASSAN DAR Appellant
V/S
CONTROLLER OF AERODROME Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- This is an application under S.20 of the Indian Arbitration Act. The petitioner seeks to invoke Cl. 26 of the agreement, which reads as under :

(2.) THE aforesaid clause is embodied in an agreement which was executed on 29-6- 1981 between the respondents and the petitioner. THE agreement was for running of restaurant at Civil Aerodrome, Srinagar. THE petitioner was, contractor of catering and the premises were offered to him with furniture on hire on the conditions given in the agreement. THE agreement was executed for three years that is, from 19th November, 1979 to 18th November, 1982. THE licence fee for the furnished restaurant was Rs. 2,400/- per month. Charges on account of electricity, water, conservancy were in addition to the premium. Rights and obligations of the petitioner as licencee and respondents as licensors are laid down in the agreement and differences and disputes or any question which may arise between the parties was to be settled in accordance with para 26 of the agreement.

(3.) PETITIONER's contention is that he was holding the premises as a lessee till 28-6-1984 and in the alternative if lease is held to have expired on 29-11-1982, the petitioner was the tenant holding over and as the tenant holding over, his lease was required to be terminated under S.106 of the T.P. Act. Since that was not done, therefore, he was entitled to hold the property as a lessee till he was evicted in due course of law. On the basis of this contention, provisions of Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 had no application to the case. The agreement in question which contains arbitration clause is said to be a lease deed and not a licence deed. The petitioner's further contention is that he is sought to be evicted in violation of the terms of the agreement by illegal methods from the possession of the restaurant which is lawful therefore he wants the matter to be referred to the arbitrator under Cl. 26 (supra) of the agreement for adjudication.