The appellant/applicant has filed this miscellaneous first appeal against the order dated 16.3.2017 made in A.A.No.196/2016 on the file of the LXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH 62) dismissing the application filed by the applicant under Section 9(d) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

I. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE:

2. The applicant filed an application under Section 9(d) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for grant of injunction restraining the respondent or its officials or its servants or any other persons claiming through under it from obstructing the ingress and egress of the staff, officials, public visitors, water tankers, horse ambulance, grass truck to the schedule property contending that the appellant is a non-profit company incorporated under Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013 and is engaged in the business of promoting sports in General and Equestrian activities in general.

3. It was further contended that since last four decades, it was operating an Equestrian Center wherein training in horse riding and other related activities were carried on in the said property. The said property also comprises a stable where ever the Equestrian Centre was established, which has been used for housing horses. Currently, the appellant has housed as many as 80 horses in the stable. The appellant has been in possession of the said property since the Equestrian Center was started under the lease for various terms from time to time. It was further contended that the respondent had executed a written agreement under which the said property was leased to the appellant, though the said agreement was titled as License Agreement and the recitals in it claimed that the said property is given by way of license, but the appellant is in exclusive possession and continuously paying lease amount and currently paying the monthly rent of Rs.88,000/- and further paying the applicable service tax. The last agreement executed by the respondent is dated 30.1.2015 for a period of 11 months which was extendable by mutual consent.

4. It was further contended that the appellant has retained various employees, who stay on the campus in order to take care of the horses and engaged various trainers, who train the riders and members, who have enrolled with it for horse riding and other equestrian activities. The appellant’s Centre participated in various events including the National Championship at Delhi and their performance in such events were outstanding.

5. It was further contended that the appellant was also in need of additional power and accordingly, with the prior consent of the respondent, it requested the DAPR Department to grant permission to BESCOM to enhance the power supply. Accordingly, the DPAR granted necessary NOC and BESCOM provided the additional power. The appellant as such took steps for setting up a club house comprising of cafeteria, kitchen, dining and sitting area, wash room, etc. For such infrastructure, the appellant had to construct flooring with tiles and also partition walls with appropriate finish and use canvas and tiles for roofing with appropriate use of wood and other materials.

6. It was further case of the appellant that when the things stood thus, the appellant was shocked to receive a notice dated 31.3.2016 issued by the respondent alleging that although the appellant was licensed to use 1,50,700 sq. ft. of area, it has been illegally using excess area measuring 2,66,119 sq. ft. Therefore, the respondent called upon the appellant to vacate and handover the said property within three months to which the appellant sent a reply on 2.5.2016. Since the purported termination of the agreement was illegal as there was arbitration clause in the said agreement, the appellant filed an Arbitration Application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for injunction along with an application – I.A.1 seeking interim order till the disposal of A.A.No.196/2016.