AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. - (1.) KHANNA Improvement Trust, Khanna has challenged order dated 9.1.2007 (P-9) passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Payal (respondent No. 3) whereby the application for ejectment of Income Tax Department (Respondent No. 1) under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 has been referred to the Arbitrator and the order dated 15.2.2008 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana (respondent No. 2) in appeal wherein order dated 9.1.2007 has been upheld.
(2.) THE submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the lease between the parties, which is dated 23.1.1992 (Annexure P-1) was for a period of five years and the said period expired on 22.01.1997. The said agreement no more being in operation, Clause 15 of the said agreement could not be invoked to refer the matter to the Arbitrator. Since the said lease is not more in operation, the orders impugned i.e. 9.1.2007 and 15.2.2008 deserve to be set aside and petition under Sections 4, 5 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises and Rent Recovery Act, 1973 deserves to be remanded back for decision on merits under the said Act. We have gone through the pleadings. It is clear from there that apart from the ground that the lease period stands expired, there are other disputes also which relate to payment of dues and damages on account of use and occupation of the premises and on account of house tax of public premises. It would not be out of place to mention here that the above mentioned lease agreement dated 23.1.1992 (Annexure P-1) contains clause 12, which provides for extension of the lease period. It is stated in Para 5 of the Application of the respondent No. 1 dated 1.12.2006 (Annexure P-7) to the Collector, Payal, for reference of the matter to Arbitrator that the respondent No. 1 had clearly communicated its option to continue the possession of the building vide registered letter dated 4.5.1998 in response to the letter of the petitioner dated 24.3.1998. Clause 15 of the agreement provides for the reference of any dispute arising out of the lease to an Arbitrator to be appointed by the Government of India. Clause 15 of the said lease deed reads as under : "15. Should any dispute or difference arise out concerning the subject matter of these presents or any convenient clause of this herein contained or otherwise arising out of this lease, the same shall be referred to an arbitrator to be appointed by the Government of India and the decision of such Arbitrator shall be conclusive and binding on the parties hereto. The provision of the Arbitration Act, 1940, or any statutory modifications thereof for the time being in force shall apply to such arbitration the Government of India will bear the expenses of Stamps and Registration Charges if any."
(3.) A perusal of the above clause 15 makes it clear that the above stated disputes, which arise from the leave agreement are referable to the Arbitrator as per the lease agreement. The Collector, Payal, District Ludhiana, vide his order dated 9.1.2007 has only allowed the application moved by the Income Tax Department to send the case for disposal to the Arbitrator as per clause 15 of the lease agreement. This order has been upheld by the Commissioner, Ludhiana vide order dated 15.2.2008 (Annexure P-11).;