MANOHAR SINGH Vs. KANTI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Manohar Singh and the defendant Kanti Lal entered into a partnership on July 8, 1963. Some dispute arose thereafter and as per the partnership deed, which contains an arbitration clause, an application under Sec. 20 of the Arbitration Act was moved by the parties before the learned Additional Civil Judge No. 1, Udaipur, for appointment of an Arbitrator. Mr. Fateh Singh Mehta, Advocate, was appointed as the Arbitrator, who gave his Award on February 4, 1973. The Award was submitted in the Court. The petitioner raised certain objections to the Award given by the Arbitrator Mr. Fateh Singh Mehta. The learned Additional Civil Judge, by its order dated February 19, 1977, with certain modification, made the Award rule of the Court and a decree was passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge in terms of this Award. The decree passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge was challenged by the petitioner before the learned District Judge, Udaipur, and the appeal was ultimately decided by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Udaipur. The learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Udaipur, by his decree and judgment dated August 10, 1988, dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner Manohar Singh. Aggrieved with the decree and judgment dated August 10, 1988, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Udaipur, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the High Court and the revision petition was, also, dismissed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court by its order dated January 28, 1992. It was stated in Clause 5 of the Award that the defendant Manohar Singh will remain in the possession of the suit premises, i.e., the shop, for a period of three years so that his business may not be ruined and he may make an alternative arrangement and he will hand -over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the decree -holder by Magh Sudi Poonam Samvat Year 2036. It was also mentioned in Clause 5 that in case the defendant will not handover the vacant possession of the shop in question to the decreeholder Mitha Lal Dalesa by Magh Sudi Poonam Samvat Year 2036 than the plaintiff decree -holder will be entitled to get the possession of the shop in question through the Court. The defendant did not hand -over the vacant possession of the shop in question by Magh Sudi Poonam Samvat Year 2036 and, therefore, the execution proceedings were initiated against the defendant in the Court of the Additional Civil Judge No. 1, Udaipur, by the decree -holder on November 30, 1988. The petitioner judgment -debtor filed objections in the execution proceedings, which were ultimately decided by the learned Additional Civil Judge No. 1, Udaipur, by its order dated August 18, 1992. The objections filed by the petitioner were rejected and the learned lower Court directed for the issuance of the warrant for the recovery of the amount as well as for the possession of the shop in question. It is against this order dated August 18, 1992, that the petitioner has preferred this revision petition.

(2.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the Award, the plaintiff made a demand for the amount of Rs.14,202.00 -while the Arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs; 19,986/ - and he further submits that the Arbitrator has awarded the Interest, also, during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings and he, therefore, exceeded in his jurisdiction. The second contention, raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Arbitrator had no Jurisdiction to pass an order regarding the eviction from the suit premises and for handing over the possession of the shop in question by the judgment -debtor to the decree -holder. Alternatively, it is contended that in the Award, no decree for eviction was passed. It was merely stated that if the possession of the suit premisesis not handed -over by the defendant by Magh Sudi Poonam Samvat Year 2036 to the decree -holder/plaintiff then the plaintiff will be entitled to take the possession of the shop in question through the Court, which means that the plaintiff is entitled for the possession only by way of a suit under the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act and he cannot be evicted in these execution proceedings. The learned Counsel for the non -petitioner, on the other hand, has supported the order passed by the Court below.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.