The court cannot substitute its own conclusions for those of the Arbitrator nor is it for the Court to interfere with the wrong conclusions or failure of the arbitrator to appreciate the facts as the Court cannot reappraise the evidence and that this will not be a ground for interfering with the findings of the arbitrator.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal has arisen from the judgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi, thereby reversing the judgment and 473 decree of the Trial Court and directing the appellant to vacate the shop under his occupation. The appellant Shri Daulat Ram (defendant No. 2 before the Trial Court) has challenged the judgment of the first Appellate Court on the grounds that respondent No. I herein (plaintiff before the Trial Court) was not the owner of the shop in question, in fact her husband, respondent No. 2 herein (defendant No. I before the Trial Court) was the actual owner. The respondent No. I was only Benami and that these two respondents in collusion with each other in order to evict the appellant from the shop in question filed the suit. That the partnership between him and the respondent No. 2 was never acted upon. He was in fact inducted as a tenant by respondent No. 2 and being a tenant he was protected by the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act. Civil Suit was not maintainable. 2. In order to appreciate the contentions of the appellant, brief facts of the case are that respondent No. I (plaintiff before the Trial Court) filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the appellant and her husband, respondent No. 2 herein with direction to vacate the shops under their possession. She proclaimed herself to be the owner of the shops as the same were purchased by her from Shri 0m Prakash, vide registered sale deed dated 10th December,1959. She allowed her husband, respondent No. 2 herein to use these shops which were in front portion of the property. Her husband was running his radon shop in two shops and in the third shop, he started business in partnership with the appellant. Vide notice dated 14th July, 1967, she terminated the licence of use and occupation of her shops by her husband and the appellant and called upon them to remove the goods lying in these three shops and handover vacant possession. The respondent No. 2 herein admitted the claim of the plaintiff and sought time to handover the possession. However, the appellant herein contested the suit and denied the title of the plaintif to the property in question. According to the appellant, plaintiff was only Benami, actual ownership vested in defendant No. I, her husband. Her husband had been projecting before the appellant to be the owner of the property. As owner he was dealing with the appellant. Wife/ plaintiff remained silent spectator to the dealings her husband had with the appellant She never raised any objection. Hence she acquiscence to the acts of her husband claiming himself to be the owner of the property in question. It was her husband who had been recovering the rent from the appellant. She at no stage asserted herself to be the owner, nor ever refuted her husband s being projected as owner of the property. Hence, she is estopped from alleging to be the owner of the property. The Trial Court rightly concluded the husband to be the owner and the plaintiff only to be Benami. The first Appellate Court without appreciating the evidence on record set aside the findings of the. Trial Court, hence the decision of the first Appellate Court is erroneous on the face of it and against the facts which have come on record. In fact the respondent No. I (plaintiff before the Trial Court) had no independent source of income nor she could have purchased this property. It is in fact the husband who paid the money before the Sub-Registrar and purchased the property in the name of his wife. He was already owner of the other half of the property and being the owner of the other half he purchased this portion of the property in the name of his wife. Husband of the plaintiff inducted the appellant as tenant on a monthly rent of Rs. 100. 00. lt was respondent No. 2 (defendant No. I before Trial Court), who on account of nonpayment of rent, filed a suit earlier against the appellant. The respondent No. 1 474 (plaintiff before the Trial Court) was a co