HUGHES COMMUNICATIONS INDIA LIMITED Vs. EAST WEST TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The array of parties in the two civil revisions

(2.) The respondent (M/s Hughes Communications India Ltd.) is addressed in two capacities, the company with its office at NIRLAC Centre, 2nd floor, B-25, Qutab Institutional Area is referred to as the tenant and the company having its office at Shivaji Marg, New Delhi is referred to the as the sub-tenant. BSNL a public sector undertaking is also referred as sub-tenant in the petition before the Rent Controller. The proceedings setting out the disputes have commenced through an application filed by the respondent contending that the original lease agreement between the parties contains a reference to arbitration and consequently, the resort to action for eviction filed at the instance of the petitioner-landlord (M/s East West Traders) is not maintainable and the matter will have to be referred to the arbitrator. The application filed by the respondent was dismissed on several grounds, inter alia, that the 3rd respondent referred to ejectment petition namely BSNL was itself not a party in the lease that contained a provision for an arbitral proceeding and therefore, the adjudication cannot be referred to the arbitrator. The further reasoning was adjudication which is the subject of a rent petition could not be referred to Arbitrator under Section 8 and the special forum created under the Rent Act alone has the exclusive jurisdiction. The first revision has been filed by the respondent in C.R. No.6552 of 2010 against the dismissal of the application.

(3.) The petitioner had filed yet another suit for declaration and consequential relief of injunction against the respondent described as a sub-tenant in the rent petition and yet another person by name Vijay Dhar. The suit of injunction was founded on a plea that the industrial plot No.2 situate at Sector 18, Gurgaon was allotted to the petitioner on free hold basis by HUDA on 02.02.1995. He had a site plan sanctioned for construction and the plaintiff had raised a structure in an area of 12960 sq. ft including 6480 sq. ft for basement, 2160 sq. ft for ground floor, 2160 sq. ft. for mezzanine and 2160 sq. ft. for first floor and rented out to the respondent having its office at NIRLAC Centre at Qutab Institutional Area on 30.09.2000 through an unregistered instrument stipulating a rent of Rs.2,26,800/- per month. This amount excluded electricity and water charges which were payable by the lessee to the concerned authorities. Subsequently, an area measured 4320 sq. ft. of mezzanine floor was let out to the lessee in addition to 2160 sq. ft. of mezzanine floor already in possession of the tenant at a monthly rent of Rs.75,600/- per month w.e.f.01.03.2001. Yet another additional space of 4320 sq. ft. at the ground floor was also let out to subsequently in addition to 2160 sq. ft. of the ground floor w.e.f.01.01.2002.