JUDGMENT - LODHA R.M., J.:---The appellants are the owners of the building known as Nalanda situate at Plot No. 28, Samant Estate, Goregoan (E), Mumbai. By the deed of Lease dated 3-9-1984, the appellants (hereinafter be referred as lessors) leased out second floor of the said building admeasuring about 2540 sq. ft. to the President of India for the purposes of Bombay Telephones (the lessee) on a monthly rent of Rs. 10,160/- and the service amenity charges Rs. 3,810/-. The said lease was for a period of three years effective from 8-8-1983 with a renewal clause allowing lessee to seek renewal for a further period of three years. The lease provided that the lease of premises may mutually be renewed for a term of three years on the same terms and conditions including the rate of compensation and service amenity charges. The lease further provided that after the expiry of six years lease period, if a further renewal is required by the lessee and notice of such intention by the lessee is given at least three months before the expiration of lease, the lessors and the lessee shall mutually decide the compensation, amenity and service charges on the basis of the rate and situation then existing and other conditions of lease would be same after renewal. The present respondent is the successor in interest of the Bombay Telephones. It is admitted case of the parties that on the lease period of three years having been expired on 7-8-1986, it was extended for three years from 8-8-1989. It appears that on expiry of the extended period of three years on 7-8-1989, the lessors requested the lessee to surrender the premises. On the other hand, the lessee intimated to the lessors their decision to continue the lease for a further period of five years w.e.f. 8-8-1989 on the same terms and conditions. The lessors seem to have declined to extend the lease period for further period of five years on the same terms and conditions as desired by the lessee and intimated a lessee that as per the terms of the lease such further renewal could only be on terms and conditions that may be mutually agreed upon including rent and service amenities charges. The parties could not arrive at mutually agreed rent for further extension. However, the lessee continued to remain in possession of the premises as protected tenant. There is no dispute and it is admitted case of the parties that the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (for short, Bombay Rent Act) is applicable to the leased premises. The lessee filed an arbitration suit on the Original Side of this Court under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 praying for; (a) to order the lessee to file the arbitration agreement as contained in the Deed of Lease dated 23-9-1984 and (b) to appoint a fit and proper person as Arbitrator to decide the dispute between the parties as to the increase of compensation, service amenity charges and payment of interest on delayed payments in respect of the lease premises. The arbitration petition was contested by the lessee and by the order dated 21-11-1995, the learned trial Judge of this Court dismissed the arbitration suit holding that the plaintiffs claim was not referable to arbitration and the exclusive jurisdiction lay with the Small Causes Court under section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act, Aggrieved hereby, the present appeal has been preferred by the lessors.

2. Mr. H.J. Thakkar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, while assailant the judgment of the learned trial Judge strenuously urged that by the arbitration suit, the lessors sought reference to the Arbitrator for determination of agreed rent under the lease agreement as the parties were not able to decide the mutually agreed rent. According to the learned Senior Court, the reference to the arbitrator of the determination of the agreed rent on behalf of the parties was not hit by section 28 of the Bombay Rent Act as the determination of agreed rent between t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document