Writ Petition No. 539 of 2015. Case: Luis Caetano Guilherme e Melo Vs The State of Goa. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 539 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: R.G. Ramani, Advocate and For Respondents: S.S. Rebello, Additional Government Advocate |
| Judges | C. V. Bhadang, J. |
| Issue | Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 16, 34, 34(2)(b), 34(3) |
| Judgement Date | April 01, 2016 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
C. V. Bhadang, J.
-
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Mr. Rebello, learned Additional Government Advocate waives service on behalf of the respondent. Heard finally, by consent of the parties.
-
By this petition, the petitioner who was the claimant before the learned Arbitrator is taking exception to the order dated 16.03.2015, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Panaji in Arbitration Petition No. 21/2012 (old Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 187/2009). By the impugned order, the application for amendment for addition of grounds of challenge, in the application filed by the respondent-State, has been allowed.
-
The brief facts are that the respondent is a tenant in respect of a portion admeasuring 155 square metres of a building owned by the petitioner. The parties had executed a lease deed on 01.07.1998, which shows that the said property was leased out initially for a period upto 31.03.2001, on an agreed rent of Rs. 5,050/- per month. The said lease deed contains an arbitration clause. It appears that dispute and differences arose between the parties, as according to the petitioner, inspite of the petitioner exercising the option of renewal and the respondent continuing to be in the possession of the premises, the respondent had failed to take steps for reassessment of the rent. In such circumstances, the dispute was referred to a Sole Arbitrator. The case made out in the statement of claim by the petitioner was that the Executive Engineer, PWD vide their letter dated 23.06.2005 had reassessed the rent for the period from 2001-2004 at the rate of Rs. 13,080/- per month and starting from the year 2005 at Rs. 15,450/- per month. The petitioner as such made a claim for an amount of Rs. 9,46,690/-, against the respondent for the period from 01.04.2001 to 31.03.2005 at the rate of Rs. 13,080/- and Rs. 15,450/- per month for the period from 01.04.2005 onwards, after adjustment towards the interim rent received by the petitioner till February, 2005. The petitioner also sought direction for execution of fresh lease deed.
-
The respondent contested the matter. It was disputed that the option for renewal was exercised. It was contended that the petitioner continued to accept the rent as per the terms and conditions as per the existing lease without any reassessment. It was thus, denied that the rent paid by the respondent and accepted by the petitioner till 28.02.2005 was an interim rent. Insofar as renewal is concerned, it was contended that the respondent had always shown their willingness for execution of the lease, but the petitioner never...
To continue reading
Request your trial