JUDGMENT

R.D. Dhanuka, J. - By these Appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "The Arbitration Act'), the appellants (original petitioners) have impugned the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the Arbitration Petitions filed by the appellants under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act on the ground of jurisdiction.

2. By consent of parties, this batch of Appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. The parties have addressed this Court in Commercial Appeal (L) No. 666 of 2021 as a lead matter and have agreed that the other matters being identical to Commercial Appeal (L) No. 666 of 2021, the decision of this Court in the said Commercial Appeal (L) No. 666 of 2021 would apply to the other connected matters. Some of the relevant facts in the said Commercial Appeal (L) No. 666 of 2021 are as under :

3. The appellant was a tenant of respondent No.l in respect of Shop No. 8 (old shop/ tenanted premises) in the old building known as Mantri Chawl situated at City Survey No. 1138 of Mahim Division admeasuring about 4136 sq. meters. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners of respondent No.l. The entire building was fully tenanted. The other appellants were also the tenants in respect of various tenements in the said building owned by the respondent no.l.

4. It is the case of the appellant that some time in the year 2013, respondent No.l approached the appellant with a proposal for redevelopment of the said property under Regulation 33 (7) of the DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REGULATION s, 1991 by demolishing the old building and reconstructing a new building on the said land. On 12th May, 2014, the appellant along with other tenants entered into an agreement with respondent No.l. Under the said agreement, respondent No.l agreed to demolish the old building and to construct a new building and to allot to the appellant a self-contained new shop admeasuring 269.12 sq. ft. on ownership basis free of cost on the terms and conditions set out therein.

5. Under clause 3 of the said agreement, respondent No.l undertook to complete the construction of the new building within a period of 11 months with an additional grace period of three months from the date of the last tenant handing over possession of his tenement to respondent No.l. Other terms and conditions of the agreement would be described in the latter part of this judgment.

6. It is the case of the appellant that in the month of July, 2014, the tenants of the said old building including the appellant vacated their respective premises. Respondent No.l thereafter demolished the old building and commenced construction of the new building. During the period between 2015-2017 the respondent No.l failed to complete the construction of the new building on the property within the stipulated period of 11 months i.e. 1st June, 2015 and also the grace period of three months. In accordance with the terms of the agreement, the appellant deposited the cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,13,068/- lying in escrow which was issued by respondent No.l as compensation in lieu of temporary alternate accommodation for three months grace period.

7. It is the case of the appellant that several meetings were held between the parties when respondent No.l assured the appellant that the project would be completed by March, 2017 and agreed to pay further compensation in lieu of temporary alternate accommodation till the date of handing over of possession of the new bui