Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2013 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 240 - HC - Indian LawsDispute referred to arbitration - Agri Horticultural Society maintaining a huge garden with a florist shop appointment of person to look after the shop on commission basis - agreement entered initially for 13 years with option for renewal for the identical period - on December 13, 2006 the society did not renew the agreement & appellant did not vacate that resulted in a dispute - Held that:- As per Clause 3 of the agreement the society would remain in possession of the flower unit being “legal, physical and symbolic” and the appellant would have to deposit the duplicate key of the doors with the society that would remain with them. It was agreed further that the appellant would deposit the key to the security or any authorised representative after the close of the day and collect the key on the next day. Interpreting Clause 3 it could not be said, the appellant was in exclusive possession. If the appellant were not in exclusive possession neither he would be entitled to claim protection under the tenancy law as a tenant or property law as permissive occupant with exclusive possession. The agreement admittedly expired on December 13, 2006. He remained in permissive possession up to May 2007 when the society asked him to vacate. As per Clause 24, he would attract penalty of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) per day as liquidated damage. Thus once the Arbitrator held that by virtue of the agreement the society did not part with possession of the flower unit and the appellant was only entrusted to run the unit on the terms and conditions stipulated therein including the one that he would have to collect the key every morning and deposit the same at the end of the day after close of the unit the Arbitrator was well within his right to direct delivery of possession. The Arbitrator came to conclusion that the agreement would denote the society would get back possession on the termination of the agreement by afflux of time or otherwise. From the case made out by the appellant, the breach under the agreement was a foregone conclusion, as the appellant’s claim for exclusive possession through tenancy was held to be not correct in view of well-settled principle of law. There could not be any further scope to adduce evidence. Arbitrator is the master of his own procedure. It is not expected, he would rigidly follow the procedural law that was available in a regular civil action. Resolution of a dispute through domestic forum would not attract such procedure to be rigidly followed. Once we are satisfied, ample opportunity was given by the Arbitrator to the appellant to defend the action brought against him the Award would pass through the test of “audi alteram partem”. The learned Single Judge very rightly declined to interfere with the Award, so do we.
|