65 In theHighCourt ofPunjab and Haryanaat Chandigarh 1 Civil Revision No 4616 of2009 Dateof decision December 17 2009 Mls AB Motions PrivateLimited Petitioner Vs Ashima Khullar Q 0 Coraml Honble Mre Justice AN JindaI C Present Mr Amit Rawal Advocate for thepetitioner Z IvlrPiyushKant Jain Advocate for the I AN Jindal J The has invoked theprovisions ofArticle 227 ofthe Z of India for settingaside the order dated 782009 P159 passedby the Civil Judge6JrDivision9Ludhiana The 0lereinreferred as the fileda suit for permanentinjunction against the defendantoetitioner6herein a5 referred as the him from interfering in any manner whatsoever 111 the rightsof the plaintiffto remove her valuable goods 7 merchandise and stocks as well as flxtures 8irniture panelingceiling Z flooring electrical appliances includingAHJ computer and otherelectronics books and other articles movable removable lyingor installed in the privately numberedas 20 having a coveredarea of60619 sq feet Situatedon the second Ooor ofthe Westend Mall locatedat MultiplexPlot No2 and 3 FerozepurRoad Ludhiana Uponreceiptof the notice the moved an under Section 80fthe Arbitration Conciliation Act 1996for referring the matter to the arbitrator as per terms of the agreementdated 103007 The said application was dismissed Admittedlythereis oflandlord andtenant between theplaintiffand the defendant The plaintiffenteredinto a leaseagreement forthreeyearsvide Ieaseagreement dated 1072 007 and he did not fulll the terms and conditions of agreementThe petitioner was in arrears and could not vacate the before threeyears therefore the defendant Anita 2013.01.05 12: 06 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 66 Civil Revision No 4616 of2009 e 8 8 wantedto take hold of the goodsplacedbythe plaintiffin the shopwhich thedefendant did not like to retum till the arrears of rent are paid No doubtas per clause4x9 ofthe Ieaseagreementit was agreed betweenthe that in the event of any disputearisingbetweenthepartiesin respect of any term or thereof the matter would be referred for to the sole arbitratorto be appointed bytheManaging Director m of the defendantcompany yet the said agreementbeingfor threeyearswas r requiredto be But the same is not one The 0 beingthe lease deed for a flxed periodof three years was C I to be as per terms of Section 17 ofthe Act vvhichreadsas under l I 17 Documents of which registration is compulsoo Thefollowingdocumentsshall legisterecf theproperty to Z which theyr2late is situate ln a district in which and if they 2 havebeen executedon or afterthe date on which Act No of 1864 or the Indian Registration Act 18620 of 18669 Ol theIndian Act 1871 8 of 18719or the Indian c6 Act 1877 63of 18779or this Act came or comes into force namely 7 Z a X X X X X Ik b9 X X X X X 0 X X X X X 6d9 Lease of lmmovablepropertyfromyear to year offor anyterm exceeding one year or resen7ing a yearlyrent7 e9 X X X X X provided x X X X X 62 X X X X X i to ii9 X X X X f Explanation X X X 63 X X X X X From the analytical examination ofthe aforesaidSection 17 d of the Act it is evident that a lease of immovablepropeny from year to year or for any tenn exceeding one year on reserving a yearly rent is 91 Anita 2013.01.05 12: 06 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 67 1 10 Civil Revision Noe4616 of 2009 8 k 96 1 It is also not in dispute that the lease deecvhich required js not one ond lt 1 1s0 settlcd bv Jw J3 1 tha such document could be taken into censidsrativi dllU in lG evidenceonlyfor a collateral purpose Now thequestion is whetherthe terms with regardto refening thematter to the arbitrator could be treatedfor collateral purposeTThe m answerwould be certainlynegativeSimilar observationswere madebythe ApexCourt in case Delhi Motors Co and others vs UA Basrurkar 0 deacoby his Iegal and others AIR 1968 SupremeCourt 0 I 794 1969RCR 813 6SC9In this case the leasefor a periodexceeding one yearwas evidenced by a document it was held that Section 107 of the I Transferof PropertyAct was clearlyapplicable and that such a leasecould not have been validly made except und6r the lnstrument Z theparties cannot claim anyrighton the basisof such a lease evidencedby document Similarlyit was observed in case SatishChand Makhan and others vse Goverdhan Dass Byasand others I 19849RCR 264 where a tenant occupied rentedpremises aftertheexpiry a5 of lease evidencedby a documentwhich required registration theSupreme Court held that such a personwas tenant holdingover and not V Z a tenant at sufferanceIt was further held that although an leasedeedcould be admittedinto evidencefor collateral purposebut terms ofthe leasedeed were not a collateralpurpose The ratio laid down bythis Coun in UjagarSinghv Prem Kumar 1986 PLR 506 1986 RCR 27 cited at the bar on behalfofthe appellant cannot be grafted on the facts of this case Therein it was held that all the terms in the rent note except thosewhich contravene the provisions of the Act may be applicable on the tenant holdingover In that case the tenancywas for 11 monthsand was evidencedbyan document It is now well seuled thatthe terms andconditions containedin a documentwhich was could not be enforcednor the opposite partyof such a lease deed can be foundbysuch terms and conditions While followingthe aforesaid this Court in case StateBank of Patiala vseJoint Hindu Family Firm Inder Sain Nanak Chand1994 0 RCR 721 observedthat where the lease Anita 2013.01.05 12: 06 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 68 Civil Revision Noe 4616 of2009 42 4 963k could be admitted in evidence for collateral purpose but terms thereofwere not for a collateral purposeand no rightin it could be enforced As such this terms of agreementcannot be enforced and no arbitrationcould be moved on thebasisofsuch an document of the fact that the defendant has every rightto recover the rent but he cannot use such force as to lock the goodsof the restrainhim not to move the same unless hepays the rent The tr remedyto recover the rent as has been providedunder the law could 0 be followed bytheplaintiffbutthe arbitrationcould not be usedas 0 coercive methodto recover the rent There is no disputewith regardto 15 of rent which could invite any arbitrationbetweenthe paniesbut 4 I herethe cause of action as arisen quite to the plaintiffwhen forcewas beingused by the defendantas hevas not allowinghim to take Z d awayhis goodstherefore the suit for injunction was maintainable r Resultantlyfindingno ment in the petitionthe same is dismissed a5 r Decemberl72009 4r deepak Judge meo Z 61 C Anita 2013.01.05 12: 06 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document