The bar contained in Section 15 of the P. P. Act prevents the stay of proceedings under the Act, including eviction proceedings, even if there is an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties.

( 1 ) BY this order I am disposing of both IAs bearing No-9297/89 and 9302/89 as the point rafsed in both the applications is identical. IA 9297/89ins. No. 3405/89 has been filed on behalf of Kesar Enterprises Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the Company) and IA9302/ 89 in S. No. 3408/89 has been filed on behalf of Petroleum and Petro Chemical Purveyors (hereinafter referred to as the Firm) under Section 41 Schedule II of Arbitration Act read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code and in both the applications it has been prayed that proceedings under Section 4 and 7 of the Public Premises Act pending before the Estate Officer, Northern Railway DRM Office, New Delhi be stayed.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the Company in terms of agreements dated 6. 1. 62 and 3. 9. 80 with the President of India acting through the Divisional Supdt. of Northern Railway was allowed as the licencee the use of contiguous pieces of land admeasuring about 15352. 5 sq. mtrs adjacent to railway station. On this land the Company constructed storage lank, godown and other accomodation and depols for receiving stores and dealing vegetable oil and kerosen oil, petroleum and petroleum products. The licence fee during period 1955-60 was Rs. 0. 48 per sq. yard per annum and it was increased to Rs. 9/ -per sq. yard in the year 1980. w. e. f. 1st March. 1982 the licence fee was increased to Rs. 68. 31p and was further increased to Rs. 119. 96p per sqr. meeter per year w. e. f. 5. 12. 82. But later on by letter dated 11. 3. 86 the licence fee was fixed at Rs. 60. 00 per sq. meter per year for covered area and Rs. 30. 00 per sqr. meter per year for uncovered area for the period 5. 12. 8210 31. 3. 86. Vide letter datcd27. 10. 86,lhclicencefeewasrevisedtors. 60/ - per sq. meter per year for both covered as well as uncovered area plus 10% increase every year. Vidclcltcr26. 10. 87. 1helicencefecwas fixed @rs. 78. 00 per sqr. mtr. per year for the period 1. 4. 86 to 31. 3. 88. Since the Company did not deposit the licence fee at the enhanced rates, the licence was terminated by the respondents on 12. 5. 88 and thereafter proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act. 1971 (in short P. P. Act) were initiated. Hence the company filed the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act and alongwith it filed IA No-9297/89 for stay of the proceedings initialed under the P. P. Act.

( 3 ) IN the case of Firm, it was allowed by the respondents as the licencee for the use of land admeasuring 6956 sq. rntr. situated at Rohtak Road, Shakur Basti, Delhi on Rs. 37,424/ -per annumas the annual licence fee in June, 1978. Vide letter dated II. 3. 81. the licence fee was increased to Rs. 91. 26p per sq. met. per year w. e. f. 1. 1. 81. Vide letter dated 11. 2. 86 it was fixed at the oldrateofrs. 37,424. 00 per annum for the period 10. 6. 821031. 12. 82. From 1. 1. 83 the licence fee was fixed at Rs. 60. 00 per sq. mtr. per year for covered area and Rs. 30/ - per sq. mtr. per year for uncovered area. Vide letter dated 27. 10. 86, the licence fee was fixed at Rs. 60. 00 per sq. mtr. per year for both covered and uncovered area plus 10% increase every year for the period 1. 1. 83 to31. 3. 86. Videletterdated 19. 4. 87. thelicence fee was revised to Rs. 78. 00 per sq. mtr. per year from 1. 4. 86 onwards. Since the firm failed to deposit the amount of licence fee at the enhanced rate, the licence was terminated by the respondents on 12. 5. 88 and proceedings under the P. P. Act were initiated against the firm. Accordingly, the firm filed the petition bearing No. 3408/89 under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act and alongwith the petition filed an IA No-9302/89.

( 4 ) MR. Aggarwal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Company and the Firm submitted that the increase in the rate of licence fee by the respondents was arbitrary and unreasonable and as such the disputes between the parties on this aspect of the matter be r