LR PRINT SOLUTIONS Vs. EXFLO SANITATION PVT LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Abhishek Kumar along with Mr. Ishwar Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Rahul Sripat, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ishir Sripat, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The petition u/a 227 has been filed for quashing the order dtd. 24/6/2024 passed by the Executing Court / Commercial Court No. 2, District Gautam Buddh Nagar in Execution Case No. 108 of 2021.

(3.) Brief facts as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner is tenant of the industrial plot no. C - 156, Sector 10, NOIDA (area 114 Sq. Meter) (ground floor of the building), since the date of execution of tenancy agreement dtd. 1/7/2008 at the rate of Rs.8000.00 per month. The agreement was unregistered for a period of 11 months for manufacturing purpose which continued even after expiry of the period. There was a dispute between the plaintiff -petitioner and defendant respondent no. 1 with regard to the payment of rent, therefore, respondent no. 1 has filed a S.C.C. Case no. 19 of 2011 for ejection of the petitioner. In the said suit, the petitioner has filed an application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that since there is an arbitration clause in the rent agreement between the parties, as such, the dispute is required to be decided by the Arbitrator alone and the Court has no jurisdiction in the matter. The said application has been objected by respondent no. 1, however, the Additional Sessions Judge vide order dtd. 19/9/2015 has rejected the plaint of the respondent. Thereafter, respondent no. 1 has filed Arbitration petition before the sole Arbitrator for the same relief in which the petitioner has filed written statement. Thereafter, the Arbitrator has allowed the claim of the respondent no. 1 vide award dtd. 19/7/2017, against which the petitioner has filed an objection under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Commercial Court, Gautam Buddha Nagar. The said objection under Sec. 34 was rejected vide order dtd. 30/6/2022. Being aggrieved to the said order, the petitioner has filed Arbitration Appeal Defective no. 46 of 2022, under Sec. 37 of the Act before this Court, which was rejected vide order dtd. 6/12/2022. Thereafter the petitioner has approached the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition, which was also dismissed. During pendency of the objection filed by petitioner under Sec. 34 of the Act, respondent no. 1 has sold the property in question to respondent no. 2 vide registered sale deed dtd. 5/3/2021 against which Suit No. 342 of 2021 was filed by the petitioner before the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Gautam Buddha Nagar for cancellation of sale deed dtd. 5/3/2021, which was rejected vide order dtd. 29/5/2023. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner before this Court in First Appeal No. 1000 of 2023, which was admitted on 10/4/2024. In the Execution Case No. 108 of 2021, the decree holder moved an application on 3/4/2024, which was objected by the petitioner but the court below has allowed the application bearing paper no. 89 Ga filed by the contesting respondent by the impugned order dtd. 24/6/2024 and judgement debtor/ petitioner was directed to make payment of Rs.8,58,795.00. Hence the present petition.