therefore, ld. counsel for HPCL submits that the company does not claim any ownership rights but only claims rights as a lessee in the said land. Since the Dealer claimed delivery of possession of the petrol pump, ld. Arbitrator had to go into the said issue. The award having been passed only under the dealership agreement dated 3rd June, 2002 and the lease agreement and the terms thereof not being the subject matter of the arbitration, insofar as the land where the petrol pump is located and the lease agreement are concerned, the observations of the ld. Arbitrator cannot be treated as binding. Ld. Arbitrator ought to have simply observed that the reference does not include the lease agreement dated 27th March, 2002 and any relief of possession was to be sought under the said agreement and not under the dealership agreement. The possession having not been handed over to the Dealer of the petrol pump and HPCL continuing to run the said petrol pump, the land has remained in the possession of HPCL for all these years i.e., since 2004 when the dealership was terminated.
