F.A.O.No.1462 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH F.A.O.No.1462 of 2009 Date of Decision:-6.9.2011 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr. ...Appellants Versus Risal Singh & Anr. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Anil Rathee, Advocate for the appellants. Mr.Narinder Malhotra, Advocate for respondent No.1. Nemo for respondent No.2. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Concisely, the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for the purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant appeal and emanating from the record, are that the appellant Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for brevity “the BSNL”) took the premises in question on rent at the rate of ` 1000/- per month belonging to Risal Singh son of Sohan Singh respondent No.1 for five years w.e.f. February, 1999 to February, 2004, for installation of Telephone Exchange. Although the BSNL was claimed to have vacated the premises in dispute on 15.10.2003, but the cable wires were not actually removed. Respondent No.1 filed civil suit bearing No.310 of 2004 for a decree of mandatory injunction against it to remove the cables from the premises and claimed the payment of arrears of rent w.e.f. September, 2003 till date, alongwith interest and compensation, in lieu of his harassment. The trial Court referred the suit to DGM, BSNL-cum-Arbitrator (respondent No.2) for decision, in view of the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”). 2. Having completed all the codal formalities, the Arbitrator directed F.A.O.No.1462 of 2009 -2- the BSNL to pay the rent to respondent No.1 upto 23.2.2007, when the cables were actually received from the premises in question and also awarded ` 10,000/- as compensation, in lieu of his harassment in this regard. 3. Aggrieved by the decision of the arbitrator, the BSNL filed the objection petition under section 34 of the Act, inter-alia pleading that the arbitral award is liable to be set aside as the arbitrator has misconducted himself because he has not applied his mind to the terms and conditions, awarded the amount contrary to the contract, not complied with the provisions of the Act and thus exceeded his jurisdiction. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the BSNL sought the quashment of the arbitral award. 4. The respondent-owner contested the objection petition and filed the reply, stoutly denying all the allegations contained in it and prayed for its dismissal. 5. In the wake of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for proper adjudication of the case:- i) Whether the Award dated 23.2.2007, passed by respondent no.2 is liable to be set-aside, on the grounds mentioned in the petition?OPP ii) Whether the objection petition has been filed to delay the payment to the respondent no.1?OPR iii)Relief. 6. The parties to the lis, produced on record the entire oral as well as documentary evidence, in order to substantiate their respective pleaded cases. 7. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the material on record, dismissed the objection petition, by way of impugned judgment dated 19.1.2009. 8. The appellants-BSNL still did not feel satisfied with the impugned judgment of the trial Court and preferred the present appeal. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant appeal in this context. F.A.O.No.1462 of 2009 -3- 10. Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that since there was no clause for the grant of rent/compensation beyond the period of vacation of the premises (15.10.2003), so, the arbitrator and the trial Court fell in error in awarding the rent upto 23.2.2007 alongwith interest and compensation to respondent No.1, lacks merit. 11. As is evident from the crux of the terms and conditions of the agreement that the BSNL was required to hand over the premises in question to the owner in the same condition as before and is bound by its terms and conditions. The arbitrator, during the course of pendency of the proceedings, sent an official from the office of BSNL to Rohtak to verify the existing position of the cables, who submitted the photographs and inspection report to the effect that the cables laid in the premises in dispute, have not been removed yet. Therefore, in those circumstances, the arbitrator has directed the BSNL to pay the rent/compensation to the owner of the premises upto 23.2.2007, the date of actual removal of cables of Telephone Exchange from the premises in question. 12. Moreover, the trial Court, after considering the entire material on record in the right perspective, came to the conclusion that since the BSNL did not remove the cables at the time of vacation and the same were not removed till 9.2.2007 from the premises in dispute, so, its owner was entitled to the rent/compensation for its use, occupation and harassment. Not only that, the trial Court also came to the conclusion that the arbitrator has duly complied with the provisions of the Act and has rightly negatived the claim of the BSNL in this relevant connection. It is now well settled proposition of law that the arbitral award can be set aside only on the grounds, as envisaged under section 34 of the Act and not otherwise. No relevant ground to set aside the award is made out in this behalf. 13. The learned counsel for the appellants did not point out any material, much less cogent, to contend as to how and in what manner, the arbitrator has F.A.O.No.1462 of 2009 -4- misconducted himself and exceeded his jurisdiction. To me, the trial Court, having scanned the evidence on record, rightly dismissed the objection petition of the BSNL and recorded the valid reasons in this respect. Thus, to my mind, since no ground for interference is made out, so, the arbitral award and impugned judgment deserve to be and are hereby maintained, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 14. No other point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 15. In the light of aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 6.9.2011 Judge AS Whether to be referred to reporter?Yes/No