K. Kannan, J.@mdashThe writ petition challenges the order passed by the authorities constituted under the Punjab Tenancy Act. The Petitioners'' action for eviction of the private Respondents had been dismissed by the two authorities, accepting the contention of the private Respondents that they had been in possession of the property under an agreement of sale, which had superceded the tenancy arrangement and therefore, they could not be evicted. The erstwhile tenants also contended that there was a provision for an arbitration and they had resorted to an arbitration and the award of the Arbitrator had provided for a right to obtain a sale deed from the Petitioners. The challenge contained in the writ petition was that the award of the Arbitrator had been subject of challenge before the competent Court and a civil revision was pending before this Court in C.R. No. 95 of 1992.
2. It bears out from the record that the said civil revision had been allowed and it was directed that the Civil Judge, Tarn Taran should dispose of the objections filed by the Petitioners against the award on merits. This Court had called for a report from the Civil Judge about the status of the case and it is informed that the case has been disposed rejecting the objections and upholding the award already passed by the decision dated 08.02.2005.
3. Two objections that had been taken by the Petitioners namely that the Arbitrator had misconducted himself and that the award was not enforceable without registration, had been rejected and the Court has found that the award only recognizes a right under the agreement and it does not create a transfer of property in the property itself and hence, the award did not require registration. The Court had also observed that there was no proof of misconduct against the Arbitrator.
4. The ground for rejection of the Petitioners'' application for ejectment subsists. It is seen from the records that even the order passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tarn Taran has been subject of appeal but for the present, the Petitioners cannot secure an ejectment. The Petitioners shall be at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings if ever, it turns out in the proceedings that the award is unenforceable and the status of the private Respondents were to be taken as tenants.
5. There is no error in the impugned orders passed on the basis that the private Respondents were not any longer tenants after the award of the Arbitrator. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
