JUDGMENT

G. S. Kulkarni, J. - This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "the Act") challenges an order dated 2 February, 2018 passed by the learned single Judge whereby the petition filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act, challenging the award dated 7 October. 2017, passed by the learned sole arbitrator, stands rejected.

2. The dispute between the parties had arisen under the Development Agreement dated 9 May, 2007 under which the respondent which is a co-operative housing society had awarded a contract for development and construction of a building for its members, to the appellant, on terms and conditions as set out in the said agreement. The agreement is known as the Development Agreement. It is not in dispute that in June 2007 about 24 members of the society had vacated their respective flats in the old building and further that the building was demolished by the appellant in the year 2010.

3. Under the development agreement, it was the obligation of the appellant/developer to obtain necessary permissions from the competent authorities for construction of the building which included obtaining IOD and commencement certificate within 9 months from the date of execution of the said agreement and further to complete the entire construction and obtain occupation and completion certificate within 24 months, with the grace period from the date of commencement certificate period as agreed in clause 8(iii). The appellant also agreed for payment of monthly rent of different slabs which varied from Rs. 7,500/per month to Rs. 15,000/per month for different periods along with brokerage charges to each of the member. In clause No.43, the parties agreed that the agreement was made subject to 2.4 FSI, and if the additional FSI was to be obtained by the appellant/developer, the same will be shared in the ratio of 50% to society and remaining 50% to the appellant. In Clause 37 of the development agreement, the parties agreed to refer disputes which may arise between the parties, for arbitration.

4. It is not in dispute that the respondent did not commence any construction much less completing the construction within a period of 24 months as agreed in clause 8(iii) of the agreement. It is also not in dispute that a commencement certificate was also not obtained by the appellant at any point of time. The appellant''s case is that there were issues on FSI and though the appellant was entitled to the FSI of 2.4, the same could not be utilized by it under the development permissions granted to the appellant by the MHADA and thus, the construction could not commence.

5. The case of the respondent is that the appellant had not paid the rent and compensation as agreed under the said agreement to the members of the society. There was substantial delay of more than 7 years and no progress was made in commencing the construction. The members of the respondent society for seven years were deprived of a permanent roof over their head and were suffering agonies of a temporary/transit accommodation. The respondent by its Advocate''s notice dated 12 January, 2014 thus had terminated the development agreement.

6. Disputes having arisen between the parties, the appellant invoked the arbitration clause under the agreement, by referring the disputes to arbitration. A statement of claim came to be filed by the appellant praying for specific performance of the said development agreement. This was contested by the respondent as also a counter claim was made claiming damages as well as payment of rent and compensation. The learned arbitrator rendered an award dated 7 October, 2017 dismissing the claim of the appellant for specific performance and partly allowed the counter claim made by the respondentsociety.

7. The arbitration award was assailed by the appellant by filing a petition under Section 34 of the Act which has been dismissed by the learned single Judge by the impugned order and accordingly, this ap