The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the terms of the contract and upheld the validity of the termination of the license as per the contract.

1. By this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 petitioner has assailed an award dated 23rd July, 2007 passed by the sole Arbitrator allowing various claims of the respondent.

2. Brief facts relevant for purpose of deciding this petition are that the respondent took part in tendering of three parking sites namely INA Market, Pandara Road Market and Sarojini Nagar Market. She being the highest bidder was allotted Pandara Road-Group B parking at monthly license fee of Rs.1,01,000/-, INA Market-Group A parking at monthly license fee of Rs.2,01,000/- and behind Delhi Public Library Sarojini Nagar Market-Group B parking site at monthly license fee of Rs.2,51,000/-. The respondent had made security deposit as per the terms of tender for the three parking sites. After being a successful bidder, the respondent was handed over possession of three parking sites on 20th September, 2004. Soon after the parking sites were handed over, the respondent wrote letter to the petitioner regarding difficulties being faced by her at the parking sites. Her one letter is of 8th October, 2004 wherein she stated that the shopkeepers were protesting and not prepared to pay parking fee and her employees working there were not able to collect parking fee due to regular interference of the market shopkeepers. On 7th October, 2004 shopkeepers told her employees to run away from the parking. She made this complaint in respect of INA Market and Sarojini Nagar Market. She wanted NDMC to intervene and negotiate with the shopkeepers. She also wrote a complaint against the shopkeepers to SHO on the same day. She sent another complaint on 13th October, 2004 saying that the market traders were not paying the parking charges as fixed by NDMC. She also stated that some garbage was still lying in the parking sites. She being a lady could not involve herself in the fight. She wanted NDMC staff should be detailed to remove unauthorized parking and complained that NDMC staff had not been detailed by NDMC for ensuring that unauthorized parking was not done. She stated in case NDMC was unable to stop the INA Market traders and Sarojini Nagar Market traders from unauthorized parking, her deposit be refunded.

3. On 22nd September, 2004 and 24th September, 2004, i.e., soon after the allotment of the sites, she had complained to NDMC that the barriers at entry and exit had not been provided by the NDMC and they should be provided by NDMC and NDMC should also provide car lifting cranes so that cars can be removed from no-parking area. NDMC should provide light, water connection and sign boards in the parking site and should also provide boundary walls around the parking area. She stated that in case instructions were not issued by NDMC for these issues at the earliest, NDMC would be responsible to non-payment of license fee by her. By another letter dated 1st November, 2004 she again complained about the market people not using the parking space and having encroached upon the part of the parking areas. She wanted NDMC to take action against the shopkeepers who fight with her instead of giving her parking charges. Otherwise, she wanted that her amount should be refunded. She wrote a similar letter on 23rd November, 2004. She simultaneously did not pay the license fee of the parking sites to NDMC on these grounds. In the meanwhile NDMC allotted a separate parking space of 50 cars to Sarojini Nagar Market Association at payment of Rs.150/- per vehicle per month as Sarojini Nagar Market Association had represented to NDMC for allotting a parking site.

4. Since the respondent had not been paying license fee, a notice dated 4th December, 2004 was issued to the respondent by the petitioner asking the respondent as to why her license be not cancelled for not making the payment of license fee. She was told to make the payment of due license fee of the parking sites immediately to avoid revoking of the license. The respondent still did not pay