- (1.) The lessors have challenged an award passed by a departmental arbitrator to the extent that the arbitrator declined a claim for rent of four months. The lessors say, in the present proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, that the arbitrator acted in derogation in terms of the contract and the award, to the extent challenged, is not in accordance with the substantive law of the land.
(2.) Under an agreement of December 29, 2000, the petitioners demised unto the Government of India an area of 9400 sq. ft. on the ninth floor of premises no. 44, Park Street, Calcutta - 700 016. The Controller of Patents used the premises as his office. The agreement provided for enhancement of rent on a periodic basis. The petitioners carried two major heads of claim to the reference. The petitioners sought the enhanced rate for a particular period which the arbitrator allowed. The arbitrator also allowed interest on the unpaid enhanced rate. The arbitrator rejected the second head of claim which was for the rent for the months of May to August, 2005. Some incidental claims on account of damages and costs were also made, but the petitioners have not urged such heads of claim in the present proceedings.
(3.) In a well-structured and organised award, the arbitrator disposed of the matter in quick time. The arbitrator recorded the points as urged in the pleadings and rendered his conclusion thereon on the basis of written submission and limited oral submission. The parties report that the arbitrator had not deemed oral evidence necessary.;