An award made beyond the time limit specified in the arbitration agreement or by the court is not void if the parties have participated in the proceedings with knowledge of the delay and without objection.

N.L.Untwalia, J.

1. Dr. T. N. Banerjee, Chairman, Banerjee Trust, leased out a portion of a house, situated within the limits of Patna Municipal Corporation near the Gandhi Maidan, to a Company known as Bokaro and Ramgur Ltd. by a written agreement dated the 13th September, 1960. Under the terms of the lease the company had agreed that on its failure to pay rent for two consecutive months to the lessor, it would be liable to be evicted from the demised premises. The rent which was fixed by way of consolidated charges was to be paid by the company to the lessor by the 7th day of each month. According to the case of the lessor, the lessee failed to pay the rent for the months of June, July. August and September, 1961, in spite of repeated demands and so the former served a notice dated the 11th of September, 1961 on the latter terminating the lease and requesting it to vacate the house forthwith or latest by the 30th of September, 1961. Disputes arose between the parties in connection with the matter aforesaid, and they agreed to refer them to arbitration in accordance with the arbitration agreement incorporated in the deed of lease. Eventually, Shri Ayodhya Pd. Sinha, a retired subordinate Judge, was appointed as the sole Arbitrator to decide and determine the disputes between the parties.

2. The contentious question which fell for determination before the Arbitrator was whether the lessee had defaulted in payment of rent and was liable to be evicted from the demised premises. The arbitrator, after hearing the parties and taking evidence in the matter, came to the conclusion that there has been forfeiture of the lease because the rent for more than two consecutive months had not been paid by the lessee to the lessor. He, therefore, held that the former was liable to be evicted and made an award accordingly on the 6th of May, 1962.

3. The award was filed in court by the Arbitrator on the 20th of August, 1962, whereupon miscellaneous case No. 64 of 1962 was registered and started. Notice of the filing of the award was given to each party. On the 10th of September, 1962 a petition was filed on behalf of the 1st party, namely, the lessor accepting the award. The 2nd partV/s. namely, the lessee-Bokaro and Ramgur Ltd. filed its first objection to the award on the 10th of November, 1962, within 30 days of the service of the notice of the filing of the award. By an order of the court dated the 21st of December, 1962, the miscellaneous case was directed to be converted into a title suit; eventually it was registered as title suit No. 3 of 1963. In the title suit Bokaro and Ramgur Ltd. which figured as the defendant filed a supplementary written statement on the 15th of January. 1963 taking many more objections to the award and to its being made a rule of the court. The learned Additional subordinate Judge, to whom the case was transferred for disposal, overruled all the obiections raised by the lessee and passed a decree on the basis of the award. The company went up in appeal under Sec.39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (Central Act 10 of 1940) hereinafter called the Act--from the order of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge refusing to set aside the award. Only two objections to the award were pressed in the court of appeal below; the other objections were not pressed. The two points pressed there are:-

(i) That the Arbitrator made his award beyond the period of 4 months after entering on the reference; such an award being invalid could not be made a rule of the court.

(ii) That in view of the provision of law contained in Sec.11 of the Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1947 (Bihar Act 3 of 1947) the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction from the house as an order or decree to that effect could be made by a competent court only.

4. The learned Additional District Judge who heard the appeal overruled both the objections and dismissed it. The company came in revision to this court un