B. P. Colabawalla, J.

1. This Appeal takes exception to the order of the learned Single Judge dated 10 October 2013 under which the learned Single Judge revoked the leave granted under Clause XII of the Letters Patent to file a section 9 Petition under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act”).

2. The leave was initially granted on the basis that a material part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, and therefore, on granting leave under Clause XII, this Court had jurisdiction to entertain the section 9 Petition. In a nutshell, vide the impugned order, the learned Judge upheld the contention of the Respondent that the dispute in the proposed arbitration between the parties was in respect of the land situated at Indore which was owned by the Respondent and which was to be developed by the Appellant. In other words, the learned Judge held that the dispute between the parties in the proposed arbitration would amount to a “suit for land” as envisaged under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, and therefore, the section 9 Petition could only be filed where the property was situated, which in the present case is at Indore. On this basis, the learned Single Judge revoked the leave granted by this Court. Hence the present Appeal.

3. The facts stated briefly are that under a development agreement dated 28 February 2008 registered with the Sub-registrar, Indore executed between the Respondent herein as the owner and the Appellant herein as the developer, the Appellant acquired developmental rights in respect of a property bearing Survey No.1487/1 and Survey No.1487/2, totally admeasuring 4.160 hectares situated at Kesar Bagh Road, Kasba Indore, Patwari, Halka No. 15/2, Tehsil, District Indore, Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as “the said land”).

4. Though initially at the time of executing the development agreement it was merely decided that the said land would be developed as a residential project and / or commercial complex and / or multiplex and / or hotels and / or malls etc., it was later decided that the township comprising of one commercial building, eleven residential wings and one private club house would be built upon the said land and would be named and styled as “Sumer Saffron Homes” (hereinafter referred to as the “said project”). Under the said development agreement, the Respondent was entitled to 40% of the developed saleable area and the Appellant was entitled to the balance 60% saleable area. One of the clauses under the said development agreement, inter alia, stipulated that the Appellant was entitled to possession of the said land and accordingly the Respondent by a separate possession receipt dated 28 February 2008 handed over to the Appellant possession of the said land which is the subject matter of the development agreement. It is the specific case of the Appellant in the Petition filed under section 9 of the Act that the Appellant is in exclusive possession of the said land.

5. It is the further case of the Appellant that possession of the said land was to remain with the Appellant till the completion of the entire project and refund of the security deposit by the Respondent. Some of the clauses of the said development agreement read as under:-

“4.(viii) Upon receiving the permissions and sanctions from the competent authority the Developer shall be entitled to start the proposed development work. The possession of the said land shall continue to be with the Developer only till completion of the entire project and refund of the Security Deposit and thereafter possession will be jointly owned.

7. REFUND OF SECURITY DEPOSIT:-

B. The Developer shall upon completion of any part of the project intimate the same to the Owner and the area in Sq Feets being proposed to be handed over to the Owner. The Owner upon receiving such communication shall refund the amount of Security deposit calculated on the above basis to the Developer