The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the agreement as a lease deed and the influence of Section 16 of the Arbitration Act on the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal.

1. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners seek following relief, among other:

“Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 08.08.2015 passed by learned Arbitral Tribunal, Dehradun consisting of Shri S. K. Raturi (retired District Judge), Shri L. M. Sinha and Shri Gaurav Sharma, Advocates, whereby application dated 04.04.2015 has rejected by the learned Arbitral Tribunal, Dehradun and further to allow the application dated 04.04.2015 filed by the petitioners.”

2. Respondent herein submitted his claim before the learned Arbitral Tribunal, Dehradun, which was constituted by consent comprising of one retired District Jduge and two Advocates stating therein that an agreement dated 28.06.2012 was entered into between the claimants and respondent, whereby the property in question was given to the petitioners. The said agreement was attributed as business licence agreement. It was further averred that the petitioners are in default of licence fee to the tune of Rs.4970317 amongst other claims including electricity bill common area maintenance charges etc. the petitioners filed their objections alongwith counter claim. It was asserted in the objections as well as the counter claim that the agreement dated 28.06.2012 is a lease agreement and not a licence agreement, therefore, the dispute cannot be referred to the Arbitral Tribunal, Dehradun. The petitioners also filed a counter claim seeking a relief declaration that the petitioners are leasees tenant of the respondent and further claim re-delivery of the possession of the property. The petitioners insisted upon certificate of terms of agreement dated …….to prove the fact that the said agreement is a lease deed and hence cannot be referred to the Arbitral Tribunal, Dehradun. Before the parties entering into the agreement dated 28.06.2012, the letter of intent was executed between the parties wherein the petitioner no.1 was termed as leasee and the agreement was termed as lease agreement. The term of agreement was 9 years and thereafter the possession was delivered to the petitioners in pursuance to the said letter of intend/t.

3. Learned Arbitral Tribunal did not decide the said question. Thereafter, an application dated 04.04.2015 was moved by the petitioners praying that the Tribunal should hold the composition of the Arbitral Tribunal as illegal and further to hold that the dispute is referable to the arbitration. The petitioners also informed the Arbitral Tribunal by sending various letters, that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute in question. Learned Arbitral Tribunal by majority view rejected the application dated 04.04.2015 holding that the said application is a licence deed.

4. A bare perusal of the agreement proved that the petitioners have exclusive possession over the property the term of agreement is 9 years with the locking period of 3 years there is a penalty clause and most importantly the said agreement is a lease deed and not licence agreement. Section 16 of the Arbitration Act empowers the Tribunal to rule on his own jurisdiction i.e. to decide the question whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction or not.

5. The ground taken in the writ petition by passing the order impugned, the learned Tribunal has overlooked the counter claim filed by the petitioners, but has not dismissed the same.

6. Learned Tribunal, after hearing learned counsel for the parties held that the relations between the claimant and the opposite party is not a landlord lesser and tenant leasee and therefore Bees Alian case would not apply to the facts of present case. The inclusive conclusion according to learned Tribunal would therefore be that the present dispute is arbitral and this arbitral Tribunal has the jurisdiction to enter into this arbitration and settle the dispute.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ……………………….

8. This Court is in complete agreeme