RAM SURAT RAM (MAURYA), J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Siddharth, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amit Kumar Singh, holding brief of Sri Nipun Singh for the respondents.
(2.) THE writ petition has been filed for quashing the order of District Judge, Meerut dated 29.05.2012, rejecting the Application (37-C/2) of the petitioner for summoning the persons for cross examination, whose affidavits have been filed by respondent-1 in support of his objection, in Arbitration Case No. 32 of 2010, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation, Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Atul Kumar Gupta and Smt. Seema Gupta (respondents-1 and 2) are owners of the building, bearing Cantonment No. 182-A, Dayanand Path, Abu Lane, Meerut Cantt. The said building was let out to Amit Mohan Bansal (the petitioner) through the rent deed dated 10.04.2007 for a period of 11 months, on the monthly rent of Rs. 1,00,000/- with right to renewal for another nine times for the period of 11 months each. At the time of execution of the rent deed, Rs. 3,50,000/- was given to the lessors by way of refundable security. In this rent deed, Mukesh Kumar Garg (respondent-3), who is brother of Smt. Seema Gupta (respondent-2), was the witness. The rent deed dated 10.04.2007 contained a clause for arbitration, of any dispute between the parties in relation to this lease. One Amit Bansal son of Sri Satyendra Kumar Gupta was appointed as the sole arbitrator, who was authorized to give award according to the provisions of the Act.
(3.) IT is alleged by the petitioner that in continuation of the tenancy, another deed dated 1/10.04.2008 was executed, in which, respondents-1 and 2 by playing fraud upon the petitioner, changed the sole arbitrator and in place of Amit Bansal son of Sri Satyendra Kumar Gupta, Mukesh Kumar Garg (respondent-3), who is the brother of Smt. Seema Gupta (respondent-2) and brother-in-law of Atul Kumar Gupta (respondent-1) was made sole arbitrator. Respondents-1 and 2 unilaterally referred the alleged dispute to sole arbitrator Mukesh Kumar Garg (respondent-3) on 18.01.2010 without any knowledge to the petitioner. The sole arbitrator without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing passed the impugned award dated 14.04.2010 for ejectment of the petitioner from the premises in dispute and to pay Rs. 4,00,000/ per month as mesne profit + Rs. 36,000/- + Rs. 10,000/- +Rs. 10,000/- + Rs. 15825/- as costs. The petitioner filed an application under Section 34 of the Act (registered as Arbitration Case No. 32 of 2010) before the District Judge, Meerut for setting aside the aforesaid award, mainly on the grounds that by playing fraud upon the petitioner, the sole arbitrator was changed by the respondents, in deed dated 1/10.04.2008; Dispute has been unilaterally referred by respondents-1 and 2 without any notice to the petitioner; Sole arbitrator has not given any notice/opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the award and; Sole arbitrator being brother of Smt. Seema Gupta (respondent-2) and brother-in- law of Atul Kumar Gupta (respondent-1) was biased and passed the award in illegal manner.;