Back
High Court Of Delhi
C.J.INTERNATIONAL HOTELS LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE - Respondent
Interim Application 2957 of 1990
Decided On : 10/16/1990
ARBITRATION ACT, 1940 - SECTION 41(B) - PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971 (P. P. ACT) - SECTION 2(E), 15 - INDIAN EASEMENTS ACT, 1882 - SECTION 60 - COMPANIES ACT, 1956 - SECTION 3 - PUNJAB MUNICIPAL ACT, 1911 - SECTION 65 - ARBITRATION AGREEMENT - PUBLIC PREMISES - REVOCATION OF LICENCE - JURISDICTION OF ARBITRATOR - BAR OF JURISDICTION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a public company running a hotel at New Delhi, filed a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 read with Clause (b) of Section 41 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an order restraining the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 from proceeding further in pursuance to two notices issued by him under Section 4(1) and Section 7(3) of that Act. The first notice was for showing cause against order of eviction respecting plot of land measuring 4.29 acres along with entire structure constructed thereon at the crossing of Janpath and Raisina Road at Windsor Place, New Delhi, and the second notice was for requiring the petitioner to pay arrears of license fee, damages and interest amounting to Rs. 27,62,17,839.89. The application itself was filed in proceedings initiated under Section 20 of the Act. There were three respondents, namely, New Delhi Municipal Committee (N.D.M.C.) with which the petitioner claims there is an arbitration agreement, the Lt. Governor of Delhi who is the named arbitrator, and the Estate Officer as aforementioned.
Finding of the Court:
1. The court held that the hotel building was not a public premises as defined under the P. P. Act, and therefore, the arbitration agreement between the parties would apply. 2. The court further held that the arbitration agreement was not invalid in view of the provisions of the P. P. Act for recovery of possession and damages. 3. The court also held that the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of the public premises, and therefore, the provisions of Section 15 of the P. P. Act barred the jurisdiction of the court to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of the eviction of the petitioner.
Issues: 1. Whether the hotel building was a public premises as defined under the P. P. Act? 2. Whether the arbitration agreement between the parties was valid in view of the provisions of the P. P. Act for recovery of possession and damages? 3. Whether the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of the public premises?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the hotel building was not a public premises as defined under the P. P. Act, because it was not "belonging to" N.D.M.C. within the meaning of clause (c) of Section 2 of the Act, and the petitioner was not in "unauthorized occupation" of any public premises as provided in clause (g) of Section 2. 2. The court further held that the arbitration agreement was not invalid in view of the provisions of the P. P. Act for recovery of possession and damages, because Section 15 of the Act contained a specific provision barring jurisdiction of all courts which would include the Rent Controller under the Delhi Rent Control Act. 3. The court also held that the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of the public premises, because the license agreement between the parties clearly stipulated that the building would vest in N.D.M.C. making it a public premises under the P. P. Act and the petitioner in, unauthorized occupation of the same on revocation of the license.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition with costs.
( 1 ) THE petitioner in these proceedings is a public company limited under the Companies Act, 1956 and is running a hotel at 8, Windsor Place New Delhi, called hotel Le Meridien. This application has been filed under clause (b) of section 41 read with II Schedule of the Arbitration Act 1940 (Act for short) and section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) seeking an order restraining the third respondent, the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short p. P. Act ) from proceeding further in pursuance to two notices issued by him under section 4 (1) and section 7 (3) of that Act. First notice is dated 12-3-1990 for showing cause against order of eviction respecting plot of land measuring 4. 29 acres along with entire structure constructed thereon at the crossing of Janpath and Raisina Road at Windsor Place, New Delhi, and the second notice is dated 2-4-1990 for requiring the petitioner to pay arrears of licence fee, damages and interest amounting to Rs. 27,62. 17,839. 89. The application (I. A. 2957190) itself has been filed in proceedings initiated under section 20 cf the Act. There are three respondents, namely, New Delhi Municipal Committee (N. D. M. C.) with which the petitioner claims there is an arbitration agreement, the Lt. Governor of Delhi who is the named arbitrator, and the Estate Officer as aforementioned. It is not clear to me how the Estate Officer could be parly in the proceedings under section 20 of the Act and how, therefore, can any interim order issue against him. But it can be looked this way that the petitioner seeks restraint on the N. D. M. C. from proceeding with its applications under the P. P. Act before, the Estate Officer.
( 2 ) ON filing of the petition and the application on 16-4-1990 notices were issued to the respondents. Only N. D. M. C. appeared to oppose them. Earlier to this the petitioner also filed two. proceedings-one under sections 5 and 12 of the Arbitration Act (O. M. P. 45190) and the other under clause (b) of section 41 read with II Schedule of the Act and section 151 of the Cod" (O. M. P. 44190 ). Both these proceedings were filed on 8-3-1990. In O. M. P. 4-5190 there are two respondents, namely, N. D. M. C. and the Lt. Governor of Delhi and in this the petitioner had prayed that the authority of the Lt. Governor of Delhi to act as an arbitrator be revoked and that a sole arbitrator be appointed by the court. In O. M. P. 44190 again there arc two respondents and the prayer is for stay of operation of the notice dated 6-3-1990 issued by the N. D. M. C. pending the determination and finalisation of the disputes through arbitratration. When these two O. M. Ps. were filed again only N. D. MC. appeared. Mr. Nayyar, learned counsel for the N. D. M. C. , on his first appearance stated that N. D. M. C: would not dispossess the petitioner except in due course of law". He stated that proceedings had to be initiated under the P. P. Act and that till the final order of eviction is passed in those proceedings no action would be taken. While arguments were being heard in these O. M. Ps. the present petition under section 20 of the Act was filed. Petitioner is not now seeking stay of the notice dated 6-3-1990 issued to it by N. D. M. C. as stated at the Bar. By this notice N. D. M. C. had claimed an amount of over Rs. 13 crores as on 28-2-1990 and since petitioner had committed default in not paying this amount in terms of an agreement between the parties, the petitioner was in fact asked to step the user of the land and the hotel building constructed thereon for any purpose and to hand over the vacant possession of the same to N. D. M. C. The petitioner was informed that if the arrears of licence fee and other amounts due to N. D. M. C. were net paid and if N. D. M. C. was prevented from exercising its rigjht of re-entry legal action would he taken against the petitioner in accordance with law.
( 3 ) HOTEL Le Meridien
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
