PANKAJ MITHAL,J. - (1.) I have heard Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned Counsel for the defendant appellant and Sri P.K. Misra along with Sri K.K. Tiwari learned Counsel for the plaintiff respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is the arbitrator by name and is only a formal party. Learned Counsel for the parties agree for final disposal of the appeal at the admission stage on the basis of the affidavits already exchanged between them. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal finally.
(2.) THE facts in nutshell giving rise to this appeal are as under :- The respondent in this appeal Smt. Asha Talwar is the owner of the shop in dispute No. 498 B, Sadar Bazar, Jhansi and the appellant herein this appeal U.P. State Handloom Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "Corporation") through its Managing Director is a tenant in the said shop. The tenancy stated in the year 1977 and was continued lastly under the agreement of October 1999 wherein the appellant was permitted to continue as tenant/lessee in the shop in dispute for a period of 5 years from 16.1.1998 to 15.1.2003 at the rent of Rs. 5500/- per month. The aforesaid agreement contained an arbitration clause No. 16 whereunder in case of dispute regarding interpretation amendment or effect of any clause of the agreement or lese or any claim or right or liability of the parties under the agreement was referable to the arbitration of the Managing Director of the Corporation, and either of the parties were at liberty to invoke the arbitration clause. The agreement stipulated that on expiry of lease period, the lease shall handover possession of the shop to the owner. It also contained a clause for the renewal of lease on such terms as may be mutually agreed upon. On the expiry of the lease there was no renewal and the possession was not handed over to the owner. Therefore, the owner invoked the arbitration clause and the dispute came up for consideration before the sole Arbitrator i.e. Managing Director of the Cor­poration. The Arbitrator by an award dated 7.6.2006 ruled against the owner and held that as the Corporation had exercised right of renewal of lease, the posses­sion is not to be given and the lease is to be renewed. Against the aforesaid award the owner preferred objections under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as an 'Act'). The objections came to be registered as arbitration case No. 22/2006 Smt. Asha Lata Talwar v. Man­aging Director, U.P. Handloom Corporation Limited, Kanpur and another. The District Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 7.11.2007 has allowed the objections and the award has been set aside. The Court below fur­ther directed the Corporation to handover the vacant possession of the shop to the owner within one month and to pay arrears of rent from 1.1.2003 to 15.1.2003 and damages for use and occupation from 16.1.2003 till dated or possession @ Rs. 250/- per day. The above judgment and order of the Court below is under challenge in this appeal.
(3.) IN the case in hand the admitted position is that the agreement between the parties do contain an arbitration clause which provides for the redressal of dispute through sole arbitrator named therein. The owner herself has invoked the arbitration clause whereupon the Managing Director entered into arbitration and made the award but the award of the arbitrator is not acceptable to the owner. Therefore only, she had preferred objection under Section 34 of the Act. The objections have been allowed and the award has been set aside. The owner wanted the award to be set aside. Sri Shiv Nath Singh learned Counsel for the appellant for the Corporation also states that he also wanted the award to be set aside and he goes to the extent of saying that the award is a nullity. This means that both the parties contend and agree for the setting aside of the award. There­fore, to the extent the award has been set aside by the Court below there is no problem to any of the party.;