Brief facts of the case are that respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for possession against petitioner with respect to a plot measuring 12 Marlasfully detailed in the headnote of the plaint. Mandatory injunction was also sought seeking a direction that petitioner/defendant be directed to remove the "Malba" of the construction raised by him. Further prayed that the petitioner be directed to pay sum of Rs,1,550 to the respondent/plaintiff for illegal occupation and use of his property at Rs,50 per month.
2. Claim of the respondent/plaintiff was that he had purchased this plot from one Malik Manzoor Ahmad through a registered Sale Deed dated 10-11-1977, in consideration of Rs,6,000, therefore, he being owner is entitled to the possession of the plot in dispute.
3. On the other hand, the petitioner contested the suit by filing his written statement. He. Took up the pleas that 'the is in possession of the disputed property for over 12 years and his title has matured in view of his adverse possession; that the property in dispute was orally sold by Malik Manzoor Ahmad (vendor of respondent) in the year 1963 to one Ghulam Mustafa from whom the petitioner had purchased the said plot. Therefore, his possession is protected under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882; that the matter in dispute had already been resolved between the parties through an Arbitration Award dated 25-12-1978. According to the petitioner's case, the Arbitration/agreement Exh.D1 was executed on 24-12-1978, in which the petitioner was the first party while respondent alongwith Malik Manzoor Ahmad and Ghulam Mustafa were the second party. As a consequence of this agreement a written award was announced by the Arbitrators. According to this award the second party was to pay a sum of Rs,15,000 to the first party. If they failed to make such payment, the first party (petitioner) will be entitled to get 8 Marlas of land on payment of Rs,1,000. If the measurement at the spot shows more than 8 Marlas of land, the first party (petitioner) will be entitled to purchase it at the cost of Rs,1,500 per Marla. If, however, the petitioner is not interested to purchase the additional land, he will surrender its possession to the second party.
4. Necessary issues were framed, in view of the pleadings of the parties. Parties led their respective evidence. The learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 7-1-1985, dismissed the suit of respondent/plaintiff. This judgment and decree was assailed through an appeal, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 4-7-1985. The same is being assailed through the instant civil revision.
5. At the very outset, it is to be noted that execution of Exh.D.1 and Exh.D.2 i,e, Arbitration Agreement and Arbitration Award are admitted between the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is in possession under a valid sale from Ghulam Mustafa, who had purchased the said property from the original owner Malik Manzoor Ahmad in the year 1963, therefore, his possession is protected under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act; that the parties had resolved their dispute by referring the same through an Arbitration Agreement and consequentially award dated 25-12-1978 was announced. Since Ale respondent has failed to abide by the terms of the award, he is not entitled to seek possession. It is further contended that Rent Controller is not a Court, therefore, provision of section 21 of the Arbitration Act would not be applicable and an award could be announced without intervention of the Rent Controller.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent contends that before the institution of the instant suit, the respondent had filed an eviction application in the Court of Rent Controller on 27.7- 1978 which was dismissed on 7-6-1980. During the pendency of said application the disputed award was announced, therefore; it is contended that in view of law laid down in 1982 CLC 2377 and section 21 of the Arbitration Act, the matter could neither have been referred to the Arbitration without the intervention of the Court nor any award could have been announced by the Arbitrators.
It is further submitted that in view of proviso to section 47 of the Arbitration Act an award obtained without the intervention of the Court and without being made rule of Court cannot be enforced without the consent of the parties. Relies on PLD 1967 Dacca 603, AIR 1952 Patna 66, PLD 1922 SC 310 (sic). It is further submitted that under section 17(e) of the Registration Act, 1908, an award is compulsorily registrable. The instant award Exh.D.2 having not been got registered does not create any right or title. Relies on 1988 SCM R 1623.
8. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the panics and have perused the available record from this file.
9. The findings of the learned Appellate Court that the award was announced during the pendency of the rent petition, therefore, under section 21, the same was illegal. I am afraid, this finding cannot be upheld in view of the fact that under section 21 the parties to a pending suit are required to apply to the Court for referring their dispute to an Arbitrator. The Court is defined in section 2(e) of the Arbitration Act in the following words:-- " Court' means a Civil Court having jurisdiction to decide the question forming the subject-matter of the reference if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not, expect for the purpose of arbitration proceedings under section 21 include a Small Cause Court." It is evident from the above definition that "Court" means a Civil :ourt or a Small Causes Court.
Certainly, Rent Controller being a persona designate does not fall within the definition of Court quoted above, therefore, reference made during the pendency of the rent petition to the arbitrator was not required any intervention of the Rent Controller. The law referred by the learned counsel for the respondent i,e, 1982 CLC 2377 is not applicable to the instant case. Because in the reference case, the matter was pending before a Civil Court and not a Rent Controller, therefore, the said judgment is not applicable to the circumstances of this case.
10. Although, in the circumstances, since the matter was not pending before any Court at the time when the same was referred to the arbitrators, but still the parties to the arbitration were required to get the award made rule of Court. Admittedly, the award was not presented before any Court for making the same rule of Court, therefore, this award cannot operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest' whether vested or contingent in the property in dispute. Likewise, an award which has not been made rule of Court does not require registration because it does not create any right or title. It can however be used as a piece of evidence during the proceedings. But, when such an award is made rule of Court it is only then that its registration becomes compulsory. Reference can be made to PLD 1967 Lahore 365.
11. Coming to the evidentiary value of award Exh.D.2, suffice it to say that it cannot resolve the issues between the parties inasmuch as it is a most ambiguous document. There is no detail of the property in dispute given in the same. It does not fix any responsibility as to which of the second party i,e, respondent, Malik Manzoor Ahmad or Ghulam Mustafa is required to make payment to the petitioner, who is the owner of the property in dispute and who will execute a Sale-Deed in favour of the petitioner, what is the inter se liability of the persons of the second party, where the property in dispute is located, what precisely was the dispute between the four persons who had referred their dispute to the arbitrators. Therefore, such an ambiguous document cannot form the basis for the decision of this case.
12. Lastly, the petitioner is also not entitled to protection of his possession under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Because the condition precedent for such a protection is that petitioner should have placed on record something in writing from either Malik Manzoor Ahmad or Ghulam Mustafa from whom he claims to have purchased the plot in dispute signed by them or on their behalf, from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty. In absence of any such signed writing from the alleged vendors of the petitioner, he is not entitled to any protection under section 53-A of the said Act.
13. For what has been stated above, I find no merit in this Civil Revision, which is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.