NAZRU SHAREEF BASHEER Vs. K. S. NARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the appellant under Order 43 Rule 1(R) of CPC., for setting aside the order passed in AA No.1/2024 for having rejected the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC., R/w Sec. 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, by the Principal District and Session Judge, Mandya.

(2.) Heard the arguments of both the learned senior counsels.

(3.) The case of the appellant is that the appellant and respondent entered into the lease agreement dtd. 2/10/2022, for running the resorts. The respondent is the landlord/lessor and the plaintiff is the tenant/lessee. The lease amount was Rs.4,00,000.00per month and has paid Rs.40,00,000.00 towards advance amount/security deposit. The duration of the lease is for 10 years. As per the clause /terms of the agreement the respondent-owner shall be complete the construction work and made to use for the purpose of lessee. Subsequently, the respondent not completed the construction work made use of the same by the appellant. However the appellant started paying the rent of Rs.4,00,000.00 per month. Subsequently, due to non completion of the construction work has stated in the annexure -A, that the respondent has to construct grand entrance gate, adjacent walls of entrance gate and road work. Fencing from main road till entrance gate. Demolition of servant quarters and construction of new servant quarters at left corner of the property (backside of existing convention hall). Resorts electrical work with new lights, but the same was not done by the defendant. However, due to non completion of the work the appellant reduced the rent to Rs.2,00,000.00 per month. The defendant/respondent illegally trespassed into the application schedule property with an intention to evict the plaintiff/petitioner. Hence, he has constrained to file the suit against the respondent in OS.No.19/2024. Subsequently, the respondent appeared before the court and stated there is an arbitration clause, matter should be referred to the arbitrator for settlement and in the meanwhile respondent interfere with the schedule premises. Hence the appellant filed arbitration application before the Prl. District and Session Judge, Mandya, along with the interlocutory application for granting injunction, but the court below was dismissed the application and not granted injunction. Hence, appellant is before this court.