P. Gopalareddy vs The Chief General Manager and Others

A.V. Chandrashekara, J.—Heard Sri. Gopalareddy, appellant who is present in person. He has submitted his arguments on the question of admission of the present appeal which has arisen out of a Judgment passed in Arbitration Suit No. 2/2010 which is pending on the file of Principal District Court, Chitradurga. Respondents were the defendants in the said suit A.S. No. 2/2012.

A detailed award had been passed by Mr. P. Vinodchandran, Arbitrator and Additional General Manager, NPD-II, Karnataka Telecom Circle, Bangalore. The facts leading to the filing of the claim petition by this appellant before the Arbitrator are as follows:

"He is the owner of a property in which the Telephone Exchange had been established by the respondents through registered Lease Agreement dated 28.06.1979. The appellant had leased the same to BSNL on 28.06.1979, agreeing to receive a monthly rent of Rs. 120/- for a period of five years commencing from 15.03.1984. It had provided for an option to renew the lease of the said premises for further term commencing on 01.05.2010 for 15 years on giving notice of such information to the lesser about three months before the expiration of the lease. Thereafter, the lessor to execute renewed lease agreement.

The renewal of lease was due on 15.03.1989 and renewed the lease on 15.03.1994 with reminders issued on three occasions. The claimant had demanded Rs. 400/- as a monthly rent for renewing the lease as well as to attend maintenance of the building Thereafter, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 200/-. The matter was taken up before the rent Commissioner to fix the fair rent. On the basis of the fair rent fixed by the rent Commissioner, claimant was intimated to execute a fresh lease deed. Therefore, lease itself were executed by regular intervals of five years and the rent was fixed upto 1995. Ultimately, the lessor wrote to the lessee on 18.09.1995 intimating that in spite of his representation, rent was not enhanced as agreed by the department and he had not been allowed to take up standard repairs to the building and that several conditions of the lease agreement had been followed.

The respondent replied to the claimant vide letter dated 20.11.1995 indicating that the rent would be paid on executing lease on 15 stamp papers at Rs. 180/- and Rs. 275/- p.m., commencing from 15.03.1984 to 14.03.1989 and 15.03.1989 to 14.03.1994, respectively. Ultimately, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 400/- with effect from 15.03.1994 to 31.07.1995. On 16.12.1996, the claimant wrote a letter that he had taken over the key of the premises without prejudice to his contention that would be urged before the Arbitrator. He filed a claim petition before the Arbitrator which was opposed by filing detailed reply. After recording the evidence of the parties, the learned Arbitrator has passed a detailed award determining the compensation at Rs. 83,025/-. Being aggrieved by the said award, a petition was filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge in A.S. No. 2/2014. The said petition has been dismissed."

The award in question passed by the Arbitrator is a detailed award. He has given a definite finding on the basis of the assessment of evidence. The reasonableness of the reason given by the Arbitrator cannot be called in question either under Section 34 or under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It is not made out either before this Court or before the Arbitration Court that the award is in conflict with the public policy of India. The District Judge who has dealt with the award, has assigned valid and cogent reasons by framing two issues for consideration as found in Para No. 10. It is not the case of the claimant that the Arbitrator has dealt with the matter beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement. The very agreement provides for appointment of Arbitrator and the parties had entered into an agreement with eyes wide open. Hence, no grounds are made out to admit the appeal.

Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed.

Parties to bear their own costs.