Sudershan Kumar Misra, J.

1. The plaintiff/appellant - Roshin Lal Gupta & Sons Pvt. Ltd. owns a shop-cum-office at the ground floor, Tribhuvan Complex, Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road, New Delhi. It let out the said premises to the respondents - Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation (DTDC) on 2nd March, 2005 for two years. The appellant claims that the monthly rent agreed between the parties was fixed @ 12.5% of the gross profit arising from the sales carried out by the respondents from the said premises. The appellant also contends that at the time when the premises were let out, the respondents assured them that the monthly rent would work out to more than Rs. 30,000/- per month. The terms and conditions of the contract between the parties were reduced to writing by a Deed of Agreement executed on 1st June, 2005 between the parties. That agreement also contained the following arbitration clause:

That if any dispute or difference arises between the parties here or their representatives or in regard to any other matter under these presents and save as to any matter the decision thereof is hereinbefore expressly provided for, the same shall be referred to Sole-Arbitrator of the MD&CE, Delhi Tourism & Tpt. Dev. Corporation Limited and if he is unable or unwilling to act to the sole Arbitration of some other persons appointed by him, it will be no objection to any such appointment that the person appointed is/was an employee of the Corporation or that he has to deal with the matters to which the contract relates and that in the course of his duties as such employees of the Corporation, he has expressed views on all or any of the matter in dispute or difference.

The reference to the Arbitration shall be deemed to be a submission within the meaning of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof, and the rules made there under for the time being in force shall apply to such reference and this deed shall be deemed to be submission to such Arbitration. The decision of such arbitrator shall be final and binding upon both the parties.

2. The appellant contends that despite repeated requests, the respondents failed to pay the monthly dues as fixed under the aforesaid agreement between the parties to them. It is also alleged that the respondents failed to render proper accounts of the total monthly sales turnover which would enable the appellants to also determine the amount due to them every month in terms of the Agreement. Consequently, on 2nd July, 2005, the appellants terminated the agreement and called upon the respondents to vacate the premises by 2nd August, 2005. Since the respondents failed to do so, another letter was written by the appellant putting the respondents on notice that the monthly rent of the premises is about Rs. 50,000-60,000/- per month and that in case the premises are not handed over by Ist December, 2006, the appellant would be constrained to seek their eviction as well as damages for the illegal use and occupation of the same. Other communications to the same effect are also stated to have been addressed to the respondents by the appellant but to no avail. Ultimately, a legal notice dated 11th July, 2007 was served by the appellant on the respondents demanding rendition of accounts pertaining to sale from the premises from March, 2005 to May, 2006. Consideration at the agreed rate of 12.5% of the monthly gross profit arising from the sales during that period along with damages for unauthorized occupation of the premises from Ist May, 2006 onwards was also demanded @ Rs. 50,000/- per month. The respondents were given two weeks time to comply failing which the appellant would be constrained to initiate eviction proceedings in Court. Ultimately, the appellant filed a suit No. 161 of 2007 before the Court of the District Judge, Delhi, seeking recovery of possession of the suit premises, damages/mesne profits and also rendition of accounts p