(1.) BY this petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Act"), the petitioner had made a prayer that this Court should pass an ex parte injunction restraining respondents, its agents, employees from alienating or interfering or dealing with the rented premises of ground floor and basement of M-26, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi.
(2.) BRIEF facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition are that the petitioner entered into a lease deed with respondents Deepak Kumar and Company through its proprietor Mr. Deepak Kumar for a period of three years in respect of premises namely half portion of ground floor and half portion of basement of shop No. 26, Greater Kailash Part-I. The rest half portion of the shop belonged to brother of the respondent and the petitioner entered into a separate lease deed with brother of respondent. As per the lease deed for the ground floor area ad measuring 800 sq. ft. (half portion) and basement area ad measuring 600 sq. ft, the rent reserved between the parties was Rs. 5,50,000/-and Rs. 1,25,000/- respectively totaling to Rs. 6,75,000/-, plus service tax. Since the petitioner had to do interiors of the premises before the petitioner effectively use it and the premises was earlier under tenancy of some other tenant who had interiors according to his requirements. it was observed in the lease deed that the petitioner would not pay the rent from 20th February 2009 to 31st March 2009. This period was given to the petitioner for doing the interior work. The rent was to start from 1st April 2009. The basement of the premises was lying sealed at the time lease was entered into. However, the seal was opened on 13th March 2009. It was provided in the lease deed that in case the petitioner was not interested in taking the basement portion on rent after opening of seal, then respondent will have the right to make entry to the basement from the front side of the shop through an area measuring 4' x 9' and the respondent would be free to lease out the basement portion to some other party. The lease deed entered into between the parties specifically provided about the lock-in-period in the following terms:
(3.) IT is contended by the petitioner that the petitioner had taken possession of the shop in terms of the lease on 20th February 2009 and the petitioner started doing interiors. The petitioner had engaged an interior decorator firm for doing the interiors. The petitioner also engaged security guards. The petitioner also ordered for manufacturing of stocks so that the petitioner could start his fully furnished and equipped showroom from 1st April 2009. However, on 21st March 2009 at about 9. 30 pm when the work of interior in the shop was going on and labour and contractor of the petitioner were inside the shop, respondents Mr. Deepak Kumar and his brother Mr. Bharat Bhushan along with 10/12 unidentified persons came there carrying fire arms and threatened the security guard and the labour working inside the shop and they pushed them outside the shop. The key of the shop was snatched from the security guards and the respondents did not allow the petitioner to come near the shop. The shop was locked by respondent. The general manager of the petitioner at that time was in Gurgaon and he rushed to the premises but he too was threatened by respondents at the midnight of 21st March 2009. It is submitted that since the petitioner had entered into a lease of premises with a lock-in-period of three years and the lease being renewable for two more terms of three years even thereafter with increase in rent, the termination of lease could not be done by respondent. However, the respondents after forcibly dispossessing the petitioner and his contractor from the shop were making efforts to create third party rights in the premises and they should be restrained from creating any third party rights.