The main legal point established in the judgment is the enforceability of an arbitration award under the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996, and the protection of possession rights under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act.

V.M.JAIN, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of Civil Revision 2534 of 1999 and Civil Revision 5618 of 1999 between the same parties and concerning same property.

2. Civil Revision 2534 of 1999 is against the judgment dated 10-4-1999 passed by the District Judge (in appeal) setting aside the order dated 24-1-1998 passed by the trial Court dismissing the ad interim injunction application of the plaintiff, while the other Civil Revision 5618 of 1999 is against the order dated 13-10-1999 passed by the Additional District Judge holding that the Award given by the Arbitrator was executable and ordering the issuance of warrants of possession qua the licensed portion of the property in question and also issuing warrants of attachment for the recovery of the awarded amount.

3. The facts of Civil Revision 2534 of 1999, in brief, are that M/s. S.S.Fasteners (plaintiff) filed a suit against Sat Paul Verma (defendant) for permanent injunction restraining him from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the tenanted premises and from dispossessing it therefrom except in due course of law. In the said suit, it was alleged that it had taken the entire disputed premises on lease from the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 2900/- in the year 1987 and since then, it was in possession of the premises and the plaintiff had installed machinery for the manufacture of machine screws. It was alleged that in due course, rent was increased to Rupees 6450/- per month and that the rent was paid up to December, 1996. It was further alleged that on 24-1-1997, the defendant told the plaintiff to vacate the disputed premises, failing which he would be evicted by use of force. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing him except in due course of law and further restraining from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. Along with the suit, the plaintiff had also filed an application for the grant of ad interim injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC.The suit and the application were contested by the defendant by filing written statement/reply, denying that the entire premises had been taken on lease as alleged. On the other hand, it was pleaded that only a part of the premises (measuring 34 x 15 ) was occupied by the plaintiff as a licensee under the defendant and that initially the licence fee was Rs. 2900/- per month, which was subsequently increased to Rs. 77,400/- per year. It was alleged that the said licence expired on 31-12-1996, on the expiry of the period of licence. It was alleged that the defendant had served a notice on the plaintiff and had revoked the licence. It was alleged that a few days after 24-1-1997, when the defendant had gone to the disputed premises, he found that the plaintiff had trespassed into the remaining part of the shed by breaking open its lock and accordingly the defendant reported the matter to the police. It was alleged that since the plaintiff was only a licensee and the period of licence had expired and even otherwise since the licence had been revoked, the plaintiff was not entitled to the decree for permanent injunction or for the grant of ad interim injunction. The learned trial Court, after hearing both the sides and perusing the record, vide order dated 24-1-1998, confirmed the ad interim injunction granted on 4-3-1997 till the disposal of the suit. Aggrieved against the said order, the defendant filed an appeal before the District Judge. The learned District Judge, after hearing both the sides, accepted the appeal and dismissed the ad interim injunction application of the plaintiff, vide judgment dated 10-4-1999. Aggrieved against this judgment of the District Judge, the plaintiff filed Civil Revision 2534 of 1999 in this Court. Notice of motion was issued.

4. The facts of Civil Revision 5618 of 1999, in brief are that the premises in question was owned by M/s. Allwyn Poly Packs