Petitioner's Unambiguous Admission of Landlord-Tenant Relationship Warrants Interim Award for Possession Under Section 17.

The Petitioner (Lessee) and Respondents (Lessors) entered into a Lease Deed on 17.12.2015 for House No. 1 and 2, Jangpura ‘A’, New Delhi, to run a hospital

A Supplementary Lease Deed was executed on 20.12.2019

Due to alleged non-payment of rent and delays, the Respondents terminated the leases on 02.06.2022 and invoked arbitration

The Petitioner contended the arrangement was actually a collaborative venture/joint venture, not a simple lease, and claimed to have invested Rs. 65 crores

During proceedings, the Respondent filed an application under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act read with Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC

The Arbitrator passed a Partial Award on 20.06.2026, directing the Petitioner to handover vacant possession based on admissions of the relationship and the lease deeds

The Petitioner challenged this under Section 34 of the Act

1. Whether the Arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction under Section 17 of the Act by granting a final relief of possession via a partial award prior to the final adjudication of all issues.

2. Whether the relationship between the parties was that of Landlord-Tenant or a Joint Venture/Collaboration, and whether oral evidence of a collaboration could override the written Lease Deed.

3. Whether the impugned Partial Award warrants interference under the limited scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

The Court applied Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which restricts judicial interference to cases of patent illegality or conflict with public policy

It applied Section 19 of the Act, which grants the Tribunal procedural discretion and the power to determine the materiality of evidence

The Court relied on Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd. v. Tuff Drilling (P) Ltd., establishing that while the Tribunal is not bound by the CPC or Evidence Act, it may draw sustenance from their fundamental principles

Specifically, it applied the principles of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act (now Sections 94/95 of BSA, 2023), which exclude oral evidence that contradicts or varies the terms of a written contract

It also noted the interchangeable use of "partial award" and "interim award" as per Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd. v. Bhadra Products

The Court observed that the Arbitrator acted within his mandate by relying on the Petitioner’s unambiguous admissions regarding the execution of the Lease Deed and the receipt of the termination notice

The Court rejected the Petitioner's argument that the arrangement was a "collaboration," noting that Clause 10.4 of the registered Lease Deed explicitly stated the relationship was solely Lessor-Lessee

Under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, the Petitioner could not lead oral evidence to contradict this clear written term

Furthermore, the Petitioner failed to challenge the validity of the lease termination, rendering their continued occupation illegal

The Court emphasized that under Section 34, it cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute the Arbitrator's plausible view with its own

Since the Arbitrator followed a fair procedure and based the award on record-based admissions, no "patent illegality" was found

It held that the Arbitrator did not exceed jurisdiction as the relief was based on clear admissions

The Court affirmed that once a lease is validly terminated and the relationship is admitted, the lessor is entitled to possession

The Petitioner’s investment claims or the unregistered status of the supplementary deed did not invalidate the award for possession under the Section 34 standard

The Court requested the Arbitrator to expedite the remaining final stages of the proceedings