PT RUDDAR DATT Vs. KEWAL KRISHEN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question to be determined in this revision lies within a narrow compass and turns upon the provisions of the reference dated 30-7-1973.

(2.) The petitioner rented out his shop situated at Katra to one, Krishen Dutt respondent No. 2, herein. Krishen Dutt used the shop for carrying on business in partnership with one, Shri Kewal Krishen-respondent No. 1 herein. The partnership between them came to an end at the end of the month of Sawan, 2029. Respondent No. 2 retired from the partnership. The shop however continued to be in the sole occupation of respondent No. 1. The petitioner demanded back the possession from him- He refused. This gave rise to a dispute between the petitioner on one side and respondents on the other. On 30-7-1973, they agreed to refer the dispute for aibitration. The reference provides as under:-

(3.) The arbitrators issued an award with the agreement of the parties. The award provided that respondent No. 1 shall deliver back the possession of the shop to the petitioner on 14th Sawan 2031. The petitioner shall be entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 3.000/- by way of Rent, out of which respondent No. 1 shall pay Rs. 2100/- and respondent No. 2 Rs. 900/-. The arbitrators filed the award in the court of sub-Judge, Reese under section 14 of the Arbitration Act. The court gave notice to the parties of the filing of the award. The petitioner and respondent No. 2 filed separate petitions expressing their willingness to abide by the award and prayed that the same be made a rule of the court and a decree passed accordingly. Respondent No 1, however, presented a petition of objections to the court asking that the award should be set aside. The parties went to trial on two issues: