1. Through this appeal, the appellant seeks setting aside of order dated 31.07.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Reasi in a petition under Section 34 of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997. 2. In pursuance to the tenders invited for letting out Shop No.48-Bhaint Shop situated at Bhairon Ghati, the bid of the appellant being highest was accepted by the Shrine Board. In pursuance to the allotment, licence deed was executed on 30.12.2001 between the parties, which was to expire on 29.12.2003. It seems that the appellant continued to `remain in possession of the aforesaid shop after the expiry of lease period, which has resulted into a dispute between the parties regarding payment of license fee. In terms of arbitration clause-20 the Chief Executive Officer, Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Board is required to nominate/appoint an Arbitrator to any dispute which may arise between the parties. Accordingly, by invoking arbitration clause 20 of the Licence deed, respondent requested the Chief Executive Officer, Shrine Board for the appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties, which has arisen due to non-payment of license fee by the appellant. 3. Arbitrator came to be appointed vide order dated 20.07.2009, who entered upon the reference and issued notice to the parties on 23.07.2009. The appellant was called upon to file objections, however, he filed an application questioning the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to enter upon the reference. Objection raised before the arbitrator was that the premises was given on lease basis and not on leave and licence basis and the issue was pending before the court of learned District Judge at Reasi whereby suit for declaration has been filed by the appellant seeking that licence deed executed between the parties is in fact a lease deed. The Shrine Board submitted its written statement before the civil court and thus has waived off its right to ask for arbitration of the dispute. 4. After hearing the parties, the arbitrator overruled the objection and directed the appellant to submit his reply regarding his liability to pay compensation for use and occupation of the shop for the period which remained in his possession after the expiry of two years. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petition under Section 34 of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 was field before the court of District Judge Reasi. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the petition under Section 34 of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 was field before the court of District Judge Reasi. The principle ground taken in the petition were as under:- (a) that the arbitrator has determined the rights of the parties by stating that the appellant was licensee and not lessee. (b) that while determining the rights of the parties, arbitrator in essence has passed the interim award; (c) that the issue regarding right of the appellant as to whether he is a licencee, or lessee is already pending before the civil court, as such, the arbitrator cannot be permitted to conduct parellel proceedings in this behalf. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Application under Section 34 of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 can be filed for setting aside of the award only on the grounds enumerated therein. Interim award can also be questioned under the aforesaid Section. The scope of Section 34 is confined only to an issue when final or interim award is passed, consequence of which is that the proceedings are terminated at that stage. Under Section 16 (6) Arbitrator tribunal is competent to rule on its own jurisdiction and a plea which a party raises in this regard if rejected would mean the continuance of arbitral proceedings, whereafter arbitral award may be passed. 8. It be further seen that the issue before the arbitrator was in respect of use and occupation of the shop by the appellant after the expiry of the term as prescribed in the deed executed with the Shrine Board. 9. The arbitrator has permitted the appellant to file his objections to the said claim and contest the claim of the Shrine Board. Any decision made by the arbitrator on the question of fact and law which include jurisdiction aspect, can be questioned when final award is passed. The issue raised by the appellant regarding jurisdiction of the arbitrator is not an interim award but an order, as such, the same cannot be challenged under Section 34 of the J&K Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997. 10. As already indicated above, arbitrator can decide the questions of fact and law having vital importance on the matters in dispute between the parties. This aspect can be looked into and questioned only after the final award is passed. 11. 10. As already indicated above, arbitrator can decide the questions of fact and law having vital importance on the matters in dispute between the parties. This aspect can be looked into and questioned only after the final award is passed. 11. Viewed this, I find no illegality with the order dated 31.07.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Reasi. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed along with connected CMP(s). Caveat No.807/2010. Heard. Discharged.