( 1 ) THIS petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" only) has been filed with a prayer to restrain the respondent from giving or parting with the possession of the ground floor portion at A3, Green Park, New Delhi, in which the restaurant "red snapper" had been running to anyone else and further restraining the respondent from entering into any agreement/arrangement with anyone regarding the management of the said restaurant/outlet.

( 2 ) THE petitioner and the respondent herein had entered into the agreements dated 1. 10. 2001 and 26. 11. 2001 under which the respondent s restaurant/bar called "red Snapper" at respondent s "sartaj Hotel" at Green Park, New Delhi was handed over to the petitioner for its management and administration for a total rental of Rs. 2,25,000/- per month. The respondent which owns the aforesaid Hotel was already running the said restaurant/bar but vide the two agreements mentioned above, the restaurant/bar along with its furniture, fixtures and fittings, kitchen equipments, manpower, air-conditioners etc. was entrusted to the petitioner for a period of three years w. e. f. 1. 10. 2001. The contract could be extended by three months notice in advance and with mutual agreement failing which it was to be treated as expired automatically on the expiry of its period. The agreement also provided that it could be determined in case of defaults upon giving 10 days notice to take remedial measures. It contained an arbitration clause also.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, the respondent was not at all caring for the air- conditioning in the restaurant and since March, 2002, disputes arose between them on account of improper functioning of the air-conditioners. According to the petitioner, by June, 2002, the sales of the restaurant/bar dipped on account of poor air-conditioning and the customers stopped coming. The petitioner approached the respondent to do the needful but the respondent started creating all sorts of troubles and interfering with the running of the restaurant by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, it suffered major losses but still was hopeful that it could carry on the business and earn profits, if it was given free hand. The petitioner stated that under the pressure of the respondent, it had been signing various documents which gave the respondent an upper hand in the matter of disputes. Around 10th July, 2002 the respondent assured it that the air-conditioning system would be repaired and thereafter the petitioner could commence its work. The respondent suggested that in view of massive repairs and installation of air-conditioners, the petitioner should suspend its business for three weeks and accordingly, the petitioner suspended its business. However, after taking possession of the restaurant/bar under the pretext of repairing the air-conditioning system the respondent entered into a business relationship with "barista Chain of Restaurants" and started carrying out renovation of the restaurant as per the requirements of the said Chain. The respondent also started creating false evidence and raising arbitrary demands against the petitioner. On 3. 8. 2002 when some of the petitioner s employees were inside the restaurant, the respondent and its workers along with some others came and threatened them to leave immediately. On 5. 8. 2002, a complaint was filed at the police station. The petitioner alleged that the respondent had illegally ousted the petitioner from the restaurant/bar and as such, disputes had arisen between them which were to be referred to the Arbitrator. In these premises, the aforesaid interim reliefs were prayed under Section 9 of the Act.

( 4 ) THE case of the respondent, on the other hand, is that the agreement with the petitioner stood terminated as the petitioner was not managing the restaurant properly and was not clearing its liabilities according to the schedule. The details o