AJIT MITTAL Vs. HEAT EXCHANGE P LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'A &C Act') lays a challenge to the Order dated 15th September, 2009 whereby the Objection Petition of the Appellant under Section 34 of the A&C Act assailing the Award dated 23rd January, 2009 passed by the Sole Arbitrator was dismissed, thus, upholding the Respondent.s monetary claim of '50,86,485/- after giving adjustment of Counter Claim of the Appellant and directing possession of the tenanted premises along with payment of '6,000/- per day with effect from 12th January, 2009 as damages till vacation of premises and an interest @12% per annum on the awarded amount.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the Appellant the arbitration agreement in the Lease Deed was operational only till the lease agreement was subsisting and once the said agreement came to an end by efflux of time, there being no subsisting arbitration agreement between the parties, the entire proceedings before the Arbitrator are in nullity.

(3.) A brief narration prior to determination of the issue in the present Appeal is that the Appellant entered into a Lease Deed with the Respondent as Lessee in respect of industrial property No. 349, admeasuring 450 Sq. mtrs. situated in Functional Industrial Estate, Patparganj, Delhi-110 092 duly allotted to the Lessor by the office of the Commissioner of Industries, Delhi, for a period of three years from the date of actual possession on a monthly rent of '90,000/- only and during the lease period the monthly rent was to increase by 10% after every two years. The premises were handed over to the Appellant on 4th July, 2003 however he neither paid the rent nor handed over the vacant possession on expiry of the lease on 3rd July, 2006. In the Lease Deed it was provided that in case of disputes the same would be referred to arbitration. The relevant clause 14 of the Lease Deed is reproduced as under: