The court emphasized the limited scope for interference with an Arbitrator's factual findings, highlighting the principle that unless there is a grave error resulting in a monumental miscarriage of justice, no interference is warranted.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J.

1. A very limited controversy arises in this appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. The appellant/petitioner had filed objections to the arbitral award dated 21.11.2014. The challenge to the award was two-fold.

First of all, with regard to the Arbitrator not having considered the payment made by the sub-lessee of the petitioner as maintenance charges to the respondent and the entitlement to the benefit of those charges to enure to the petitioner. Secondly, with regard to the issue that on account of electricity being disconnected, the appellant could not have enjoyed the property and was thus not liable to pay any maintenance charges.

3. With regard to the first contention raised, the impugned order records that the respondent had shown that the amount paid by the sub-lessee was in respect of the area occupied by the sub-lessee and that amount was not in respect of the area occupied by the appellant and as such the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the same. The appellant had conceded this point before the learned Single Judge and as such the objections qua this aspect were rejected. The present appeal does not challenge this aspect of the impugned order.

4. With regard to the second objection raised by the appellant before the learned Single Judge, the impugned order rejects the objection on the ground that no such submission appears to have been made before the Arbitrator and the appellant had not taken a specific ground that such a submission was urged and not considered by the Arbitrator. In this view of the matter, the learned Single Judge has rejected the second objection raised by the appellant.

5. The appellant had contended that this aspect of the impugned order is erroneous, in as much as, such a contention was raised before the Arbitrator and has been considered. Our attention was drawn to the part of the award that deals with the same.

6. We find that the award deals with this issue and the learned Single Judge has erred in rejecting the objection on this ground. There were, thus, two courses open to us in this view of the matter. One was to remit the objection to the learned Single Judge to reconsider the same and the other was to consider it ourselves. Since the controversy between the parties is very limited, we have followed the latter course. We have heard parties on the merits of this issue.

7. The objection raised by the appellant is that the Arbitrator had not considered the issue that on account of electricity being disconnected, the appellant could not enjoy the property and was thus not liable to pay any maintenance charges.

8. The appellant was a tenant in respect of premises Nos. G-12 and G-13 in ‘Pacific’ Multiplex-cum-hotel situated in District Ghaziabad vide lease agreement dated 18.10.2005. The appellant had entered into a maintenance service agreement with the respondent. The appellant vacated the premises 03.11.2010. The respondent filed its claim contending that the appellant had not paid the common area and maintenance charges and also charges towards the electricity dues for June 2010 to October 2010.

9. The Arbitrator had framed the specific issue as Issue No. 5 as under:

“5. Whether the claimant had disconnected electricity to the retail store on 13.06.2010, if so, its effect?”

10. The issue that on account of electricity being disconnected, the appellant could not have enjoyed the property and was thus not liable to pay any maintenance charges would be covered by the issue 5 framed and considered by the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator after noticing the evidence lead by the parties, with regard to the said issue, has held as under:

“12. It is proposed to deal, firstly, with the issue whether the claimant had disconnected electricity to the tenancy premises of the respondent on 13.06.2010 in his Affidavit in evidence, RW1 Shri Mohit S. Nigam states that electricity remained ‘virtually