Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.

1. This intra court appeal impugns the order dated 30th October, 2012 of the learned Single Judge of dismissal of WP(C) 5011/2010 preferred by the appellant. The said writ petition was preferred impugning the legal notice dated 14th June, 2010 issued by the advocate for the respondent no.1 ITDC to the appellant of termination of the Lease Agreement of property No. C-119 Naraina Industrial Area, Phase 1, New Delhi with the petitioner and the consequent notice dated 1st July 2010 issued by the respondent No.2 being the Estate Officer of the respondent No.1 to the petitioner under Section 4 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act). The appellant by the said writ petition also sought to prohibit the respondents from evicting the appellant from the said property and further sought mandamus directing the respondents to allow the appellant to continue carrying on its business from the said property.

2. The learned Single Judge did not agree with the contention of the appellant that the proceedings under the PP Act were not maintainable owing to the existence of an arbitration clause in the lease agreement between the appellant and the respondent No.1 ITDC and further held that once the jurisdictional barrier is removed, there is no justification to halt the PP Act proceedings at the very inception and thus dismissed the writ petition but nevertheless held that any observations made in the said order on the merits of the disputes raised except jurisdictional dispute will not come in the way of final adjudication of the issues raised.

3. The factual controversy insofar as relevant for dealing with the contentions raised before us is as under:

(i) the respondent No.1 ITDC is the perpetual lessee of the land underneath the aforesaid property at Naraina Industrial Area, Phase-1 and has constructed a workshop thereon;

(ii) the respondent No.1 ITDC sublet the property to the appellant in or about the year 1988; and

(iii) that the sub-lease between the appellant and the respondent No.1 was extended from time to time, lastly by a registered sub-lease agreement dated 19th February,2002 for a period of nine years w.e.f. 1st February, 2002 and expiring on 31st January, 2011 and with the appellant being entitled to renewal of sub-lease for a further period of nine years from 1st February 2011 to 31st January, 2020. Clause 17 of the said sub lease was as under:

“17. All disputes and differences arising out or in any way touching or concerning this sub-lease agreement except those the decision whereof its otherwise herein before expressly provided for or to which the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act and the Rules framed thereunder which are now in force or which may hereafter come in to force are applicable shall be referred to a tribunal of three arbitrators one to be appointed by the Lessee and the second by the sub-Lessee and third by both arbitrators in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof shall apply to such arbitration. The award of the Arbitrator so appointed shall be final and binding on both parties. The Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and the amendments made therein from time to time shall be applicable. The venue of Arbitration shall be at Delhi. The Rules and Procedures of Indian Council of Arbitration shall apply to the arbitration proceedings.”

(iv) The respondent No.1 ITDC vide legal notice dated 14th June, 2010 (supra) determined the sub-lease in favour of the appellant averring breaches/violations by the appellant in the form of making additions and additional construction in the property without the consent and authority of the respondent no.1 ITDC.

(v) The appellant not only replied to the aforesaid notice controverting the contents thereof but also on 29th June, 2010 invoked the arbitration clause aforesaid in the sub-lease and nominated