BANSI LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PURSUANT to an order dated 18th of April, 1974 made by this Court on the application of the petitioner under section 20 of the J& K Arbitration Act for the appointment of an arbitrator for resolving the disputes between the parties Shri O N Tikhu Advocate General was appointed arbitrator and the disputes mentioned in the said order were referred to him for adjudication. The arbitrator entered upon the reference. He gave his award on 25th of May, 1975 which is Ex P, W. I 1. The Arbitrator has decided that the, Central P. W D has fairly fixed the rent of the building at the rate of Rs 80O per month and the petitioner is entitled to it from 1st of November 1967. The said assessment of rent @ Rs 800 per month was conveyed to the respondents by the Executive Engineer C P. W. D on 15 -9 -69 and this assessment is binding on the respondents who cannot continue to occupy these premises at the old rate of Rs 330 P. M. On receipt of the award the parties were asked to file their respective objections. Respondent through Mr. A. D Singh Advocate filed objections averring therein that the lease agreement dated 15 7 75 being not in accordance with Art. 299 of the constitution of India the reference to the Arbitrator was nullity and it could not confer jurisdiction on the arbitrator to enter upon the reference. Consequently the award given by the arbitrator is non -est in the eye of law. Again, the arbitrator did not have the jurisdiction to enhance the rent of the demised premises on the mere plea of the petitioner that he had effected certain repairs. The arbitrator failed to consider this matter. This was a mistake apparent on the face of the award. Another objection raided is that the respondent closed his evidence on 3 -12 -74 and the case was fixed for arguments. But the arbitrator did not fix any date for arguments. No summons was issued and no information was given to the counsel for the respondent regarding any further date of hearing after 3 -12 -74. The arbitrator decided the case by hearing the other party to Srinagar. The hearing of the case behind the back of the respondent constituted legal misconduct on the part of the arbitrator. Failure to provide an opportunity to the respondent to be heard violated the principle of natural justice. Further, the arbitrator did not care to decide issue No. 1. which clearly reflects that he did not bring to bear his mind on the said issue. The arbitrator had misconstrued the evidence as also the documents on the file. The conclusions drawn by him from the record are not possible. The findings recorded by him suffer from grave errors which are apparent on the face of the record. The award is against the provisions of the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act. The only relevant agreement which is the basis of the claim is of 15 -7 -65; but the arbitrator did not refer to it and on the contrary relied upon an agreement of 1964. He could not hold that the agreement governing the parties was of 10 -7 -64 when actually it was the agreement of 1965 that was the relevant document. The entire claim of the petitioner being based on the lease agreement of 1965 the arbitrator could not refer to a different and therefore this finding that the agreement governing the parties is of the year 1964 is wholly misconceived. Even the said agreement was not registered and could not be relied upon.

(2.) AGAIN , the arbitrator never visited the premises in order to assess the rent of the premises. He simply relied upon the letter of the Executive Engineer Modhpur dated 15 -9 -1969 which was later on withdrawn by the C.P.W. D authorities. The arbitrator failed to apply his mind to this aspect of the matter and as such his finding on this point was clothed with illegality. Also the arbitrator could not declare and give effect to the award from a retrospective date. On this ground also the award was bad in law.

(3.) IN award, on the other hand, is supported by the petitioner.