1. In these petitions filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (The Act), the petitioners have challenged the common award made by the learned Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three learned Arbitrators, whereby the Arbitral Tribunal has, inter alia, awarded damages in favour of the respondent landlords and against the petitioner/tenant from 01.09.2007 onwards, on the ground that the petitioner had not exercised its right of renewal granted under the lease deeds executed by it with each of the respondents within time and prior to the termination of the respective lease deeds by the respondents.

2. The respondents are the owners of the commercial premises in question which was leased out to the petitioner company. The first set of lease deeds were executed on 01.09.2001 commencing from 01.09.2001 for a period of three years with a clause for renewal for further period of three years at the option of the petitioner. These were registered agreements. Another set of lease deeds were executed and registered on 25.11.2004, for a period of three years commencing from 01.09.2004. These agreements also contained a renewal clause. The dispute between the parties that was taken to arbitration was whether the petitioner exercised its right of renewal as per the terms of the registered deeds, and if not, whether they are liable to compensate the respondents/claimants/landlords for the damages suffered by them and to pay the market rent for the period during which the petitioner continues in possession despite termination of the leases, and whether they not liable to vacate the premises in question. These issues have been answered by the Tribunal unanimously in favour of the respondents.

3. Clause 2 of the lease deeds dated 25.11.2004 contained identical renewal clause, and the same reads as follows:

“2. The Lessor does hereby allow and permit the Lessee subject to the terms and conditions herein contained to enter upon and use the said Premises admeasuring 2668.09 sq.ft. and 2279.76 sq.ft. each constructed as per Municipal Corporation Approved Plan and marked in red ink in the Floor plan annexed hereto, on “Lease Basis” for a period of three years commencing from 1st September, 2004. The lease shall, however, at the option of the Lessee be further renewable by an instrument in writing for another term of minimum term of three years. The Lessor shall not reserve any right to reject the said renewal. Provided that the Lessee shall reserve the right at any time during the term of the Agreement to terminate the agreement after having served a prior notice of three calendar months upon the Lessor to this effect.”

4. Clause 7 of the lease deeds dated 25.11.2004 is also relevant and the same reads as follows:

“7. The Lessor expressly affirms that the Lessors shall not claim the right to terminate the Agreement during the term of this Agreement and the next renewal of three years, if made by the lessee under any circumstance whatsoever, and after the said period of term of this Agreement and the next renewal of three years, the Lessors shall be entitled to terminate this Agreement by serving 3 (Three) months prior notice on the Lessee.”

5. The period of lease under the lease agreement dated 25.11.2004 expired on 31.08.2007. On 08.09.2007, the respondent landlords sent a common notice to the petitioner. In this notice the respondents stated that despite the fact that there was a clause for renewal of the lease for a further period of three years, the petitioner had neither opted nor taken any steps to renew the lease during the currency of the lease between 01.09.2004 and 31.08.2007. No written instruction for the renewal of the lease as per the terms of the said lease agreement was received from the petitioner. The said renewal clause, due to the expiry of the lease term did not exist anymore. The respondents stated that the petitioner had relinquished its option for the renewal