Rajiv Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the Revisionists and Mr. T. N. Singh holding brief for Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents.
(2.) ON 15.3.1992, the Respondent No. 1/plaintiff and the Revisionist entered into an agreement for lease of the premises situated at Mailani, Police Station Mailani, District Lakhimpur Kheri for a period of one year, by means of registered agreement and time to time it was renewed. In the said agreement, it has also been provided that in case of dispute arises in respect of the terms and conditions, the same shall be referred to the Arbitrator. As the Revisionist did not vacate the house in question as provided in the agreement, notice dated 5.9.2005 under Section of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was served upon him. The said notice was not complied and the respondent No. 1 filed SCC Suit No. 1/2006 before the Additional District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri praying for ejectment of Revisionist, arrears of rent etc. After issuance of notice, written statement has been filed, wherein it has been specifically stated that as there was an agreement and as such, the matter has to be referred to the Arbitrator and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Revisionist herein has also preferred an application for appointment of an Arbitrator, but the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the dispute which has been raised in the instant case does not arise within the terms and conditions of the agreement, which has been entered into between the parties and as such, there was no need for referring the matter to the Arbitrator. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the instant revision has been filed.
(3.) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the order, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the trial Court suffers from illegalities, insofar as one of the clause of the agreement dated 15.3.1997 is that if at any time there shall arise any dispute, doubt, difference or question with regard to the interpretation or meaning or any terms and conditions of this demise or in respect of the rights duties and liabilities of the parties hereto or in any way, touching or arising out of these presents or otherwise in relation to the premises, then every such dispute, difference doubt or question (except the decision whereof is herein expressly provided for (shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Director General of P & T) in case his designation is changed or his office is abolished, the office who for the time being is entrusted, whether or not in addition to other functions, with functions of the Director General of P & T by whatsoever designation, such official may be called or if he be unable to unwilling to act, then of an officer appointed by him in this behalf, it will be no objection to nay such appointment that the person appointed is a Govt. Servant that he had to deal with the matter to which the indenture of lease related and that in the course of his duties such Govt. Servant has expressed views on all or nay of the matters in dispute or difference. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties to this deal. The provision of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 or any statutory modifications or re -enactment whereof and the rules made there under the time being in force shall apply to such arbitration and this deal shall be deemed to be a submission to the arbitration within the meaning of the said act.;