BARCO ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS PVT LTD Vs. KIRAN MALIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act') seeking the appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

(2.) The Petitioner states that it is a private limited company and a 100% subsidiary of M/s Barco N.V., Belgium which was carrying on manufacturing activities from the premises at A-5, Sector-5, Noida (hereinafter 'premises in question'). On 11 th September 2000 an agreement of lease was executed whereby the Respondent Mrs. Kiran Malik gave on lease to the Petitioner the premises in question, which is an industrial factory built on a plot measuring 1906 sq. m., and of which the Respondent is the absolute owner. It is stated that the covered area comprised of ground floor, second floor and basement of 100 sq. m. with 32 toilets and 2 pantries. The lease amount was Rs. 2,50,000/- for the first four months between 15 th September 2000 to 15 th January 2001, Rs. 3,75,000/- for the next four months, i.e., 15 th January 2001 to 15 th May 2001 and Rs. 5,00,000/- per month for the next ten months, i.e., from 15 th May 2001 to 15 th March 2002. The rent was to be increased by 6% from 15 th March 2002 for the next one year up to 15 th March 2003 and thereafter increased at a rate of 6% yearly over the previous prevailing rent. The lease agreement was for a total period of eight years up to 15 th September 2008. The Petitioner was to pay security deposit of Rs. 6 lakh which was to be returned to the Petitioner on vacation of the premises after deduction by the Respondent of dues and damages, if any. It is stated that the Petitioner paid the security deposit of Rs. 6 lakh and a separate security deposit of Rs. 1,01,437/- was given towards the security deposit of the U.P. State Electricity Authority under the lease deed which was unregistered. The lease could be terminated by either party by giving at least six months' prior notice. Clause 9 of the lease deed stated that any dispute between the lessee and lessor would be referred to the arbitrator "Mr. Sushil Nayar S/o Y.P. Nayar R/o E-25, Sector-27, NOIDA whose award shall be final and binding on both the parties." The arbitration was to be governed by the Act.

(3.) On 6 th February 2006 the Petitioner gave six months' written notice to the Respondent for termination of the lease expressing its intention to vacate the premises by 5 th August 2006. According to the Petitioner, by mutual agreement of the parties the date of termination was extended up to January 2007 and the Petitioner continued to pay rental and other charges. On 19 th January 2007, to avoid any controversy, the Petitioner issued another notice of termination of 15 days calling upon the Respondent to refund all the security deposit held by her and further asked her to take over the possession of the premises in question on 3 rd February 2007, upon refunding the entire security deposit. According to the Petitioner it asked the Respondent to inspect the premises in question in the meanwhile in case the Respondent required any repairs to be carried out by the Petitioner. However, the Respondent failed to do so. The Respondent's version