The liability of the appellant to pay outstanding rent and maintenance charges was not restricted by a previous order, and the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was not maintainable due to the pendency of a similar application filed by the respondent.

JUDGMENT

S.R. Krishna Kumar, J. - This appeal by the respondent in Com. A.A. No. 247/2021 is directed against the impugned order dated 04.03.2022 passed by LXXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (Commercial Court) whereby, the Commercial Court partly allowed the application filed by the respondent herein under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short A the said Act of 1996') and dismissed the interlocutory application-I.A. No. III filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the said Act of 1996.

2. The material on record discloses that the respondent entered into a lease deed dated 10.06.2020 with the appellant in relation to the schedule premises. The appellant had filed A.A. No. 127/2021 under Section 9 of the said Act of 1996 for an interim order/direction restraining the respondent from interfering with the appellant's possession of the schedule property pending disposal of the Arbitration proceedings, which are said to have been initiated by the appellant. In the said A.A. No. 127/2021, the appellant filed an application, I.A. No. 1 for ad-interim order of temporary injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the appellant's possession and enjoyment of the schedule property during the pendency of the arbitration application. In the said A.A. No. 127/2021, the appellant also filed a memo stating that the appellant was ready to deposit the agreed rent on a monthly basis to the tune of 40% of the rent before the trial court.

3. The said A.A. No. 127/2021 and the application, memo etc., filed by the appellant, having been opposed by the respondent, the trial court passed an order dated 22.12.2021 restraining the respondent from interfering with the appellant's possession of the schedule property till the next date of hearing i.e.,. 18.01.2022. In this context, it is relevant to state that the said interim order was not extended. Subsequently, under the said order dated 22.12.2021 passed in A.A. No. 127/2021, the trial court permitted the appellant to deposit the rent as prayed for in the memo dated 21.12.2021.

4. Meanwhile, the respondent herein filed the instant COM. A.A. 247/2021 before the trial court under Section 9 of the said Act of 1996 for a direction to the appellant herein to deposit outstanding rent and maintenance charges and for other reliefs. In the said proceedings, in addition to opposing the application filed by the respondent, the appellant also filed an application I.A. No. III under Section 9 of the said Act of 1996 to restrain the respondent from interfering with the appellant's possession of the schedule property till disposal of the arbitration proceedings. The said I.A. No. III having been opposed by the respondent, the trial court proceeded to pass the impugned common order allowing COM. A.A. No. 247/2021 filed by the respondent and dismissing I.A. No. III filed by the appellant. Aggrieved by the impugned common order, the appellant is before this Court by way of the present appeal.

5. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the trial court will indicate that the trial court has directed the appellant to pay the sums towards occupation of the leased premises, including the amount towards maintenance along with applicable GST at the rate mentioned in the lease deed dated 10.06.2020, from December 2021 till conclusion of arbitration proceedings or till passing of any interim order by the Arbitral Tribunal to be constituted, so long as the appellant herein continued to be in occupation of the schedule premises; under the impugned order, the Commercial Court also directed the appellant herein to adjust any amount, if already deposited in A.A. No. 127/2021, in payment of the sums as per this order and the payment to be made by the appellant herein as per the impugned order, would be subject to final order to be passed in the arbitration proceedings; so also, I.A. No. III filed by the appellant was dismissed by the trial court. While doing so, the tr