ANIL KUMAR Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed by the petitioner Sh. Anil Kumar against the DDA under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes that have arisen between the parties in terms of Arbitration Agreement contained in Clause 24 of the Licence Deed executed on 04.12.2005 relating to allotment of a parking site in the basement of Plot No. 7-A, Janak Puri, New Delhi. A notice of this petition was sent to the respondent and Mr. Mohan Rao, Advocate has appeared on its behalf. Despite opportunity given, reply to the petition has not been filed by the respondent.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of case giving rise to the disputes between the parties are that the respondent had alloted a parking site to the petitioner in the basement of Plot No. 7-A, Janak Puri, New Delhi for a period of three years from 23.01.2006 to 22.01.2009 at a licence fee of Rs. 60,000/- per month. This parking lot was alloted for parking of 216 cars. The contention of the petitioner is that prior to allotment of the site in question to the petitioner, the respondent had awarded the same site to another contractor for parking of only 68 cars. It is submitted by the petitioner's learned counsel that the parking site is meant only for parking of 68cars in the basement and to that extent there was a mis-representation at the time of allotment that it could accommodate 216 cars. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is liable to pay only 1/3rd of the agreed licence fee i.e. Rs.20,000/-. He has further submitted that the disputes in terms of Licence Deed executed between the parties have arisen which need to be referred to the Arbitrator in terms of Clause 24 of the Arbitration Agreement which reads as under:-

(3.) The counsel for the respondent has disputed that the parking site alloted to the petitioner is actually meant for parking of 216 cars and therefore the petitioner is liable to pay the agreed licence fee of Rs. 60,000/- . The learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner had inspected the site before offering his tender for allotment of site in question. From the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that there exists a dispute between the parties regarding the number of cars that can be parked at the site alloted to the petitioner and also regarding liability of the petitioner to pay the licence fee. This dispute between them has to be adjudicated by reference to the Arbitrator in terms of Arbitration Agreement between them. Before filing of the present petition, the petitioner vide notice dated 03.11.2006 had called upon the respondent to refer the dispute that has arisen between the parties to an Arbitrator in terms of Arbitration Agreement between them. The respondent failed to comply with the demand in this regard made by the petitioner. This clearly makes out a case for appointment of an Arbitrator by the Court for adjudicating the disputes that have arisen between the parties in terms of licence fee pertaining to allotment of parking site alloted to the petitioner for the period from 23.01.2006 to 22.01.2009. The counsel on both sides have agreed that a former Additional District Judge may be appointed as an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties under the contract. Accordingly Mr. B.L. Garg, former Additional District Judge, Delhi is hereby appointed as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. His fee is fixed at Rs. 50,000/- to be shared in the first instance equally by both the parties.