Arbitral jurisdiction beyond the reference cannot rewrite lease terms; award altering rent and tenure was set aside.

An arbitral tribunal appointed under a dealership agreement cannot decide or alter rights under a separate lease agreement when the two contracts have distinct arbitration clauses and appointing authorities. An award made beyond the submission to arbitration is vulnerable under Section 34(2)(a)(iv) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and a tribunal cannot rewrite agreed contractual terms by increasing rent or reducing the lease period. Such interference is beyond jurisdiction and amounts to patent illegality, so the award was set aside to the extent it modified the lease terms.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitral award could validly enhance the monthly lease rent and alter the lease period, though the arbitrator was appointed under the dealership agreement and not under the lease agreement.

Analysis: The lease agreement and the dealership agreement were distinct and independent contracts, with separate arbitration clauses and different appointing authorities. The arbitrator appointed under the dealership agreement had no authority to adjudicate disputes arising under the lease agreement. An award dealing with matters outside the submission to arbitration falls within the ground under Section 34(2)(a)(iv) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and a tribunal cannot rewrite a valid contract by increasing rent or reducing the lease term. Such interference also amounts to patent illegality and is contrary to the limits on judicial intervention and arbitral power recognized under the Act.

Conclusion: The award, to the extent it enhanced the lease rent and reduced the lease period, was without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the award succeeded, and the appellate court restored the contractual position by removing the arbitral alterations to rent and lease duration.

Ratio Decidendi: An arbitral tribunal cannot decide or modify rights under a contract that is outside the scope of its appointment, and any award that re-writes agreed contractual terms is liable to be set aside as beyond jurisdiction and patently illegal.

---