The court emphasized the importance of interpreting the language used in the contract and upheld the arbitrator's interpretation of the documents.

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J. IA No. 16072/2013 (Exemption) Allowed subject to just exceptions. OMP No. 1004/2013 1. This is a petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act) which is directed against an interim award dated 18.09.2013 passed by the learned arbitrator. The interim award came to be passed on an application moved by the petitioner under Section 31(6) of the Act read with Order 12 Rule 6, Order 15 Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the Code).

2. The impugned award, in short, allowed the aforementioned application of the respondent for claiming recovery of possession of the premises in issue being: Shop Nos. 218, 219, 220, 221, 221A, 222 and FFK3 situate on the first floor of DLF Place, Saket, New Delhi having a super area of 706.521 sq. mtrs. (approximately) (hereinafter referred to as the demised premises).

3. The impugned award primarily is based on the construction of documents to which I will make a reference hereinafter. It is pertinent to note that there is no dispute as between the parties either as regards the execution of the documents or their contents.

4. The respondent herein is admittedly the owner/ developer of the mall known as DLF Place, in which the demised premises is situate. The parties herein, evidently, decided to enter into a relationship of a lessor and lessee. Consequent thereto, three documents of even date, i.e., 18.05.2010 were executed. The first document was a terms sheet; the second, a draft lease deed; and the third, an addendum.

4.1 In the background of the execution of the three documents referred to above, a registered lease deed was executed between the parties, which is dated 28.05.2010. The registered lease deed provided a tenure of three years, which commenced from 20.05.2010. The lease, thus, came to an end by afflux of time on 19.05.2013. Admittedly, the registered lease deed in clause (1) provided for an option to the petitioner to renew the lease deed on the same terms and conditions subject to increase in rent etc. as provided in clause (4) of the said lease deed for a further term of three years.

4.2 Evidently, a notice for renewal of lease deed dated 22.03.2013 was served on the respondent followed by a reminder dated 15.04.2013.

4.3 The respondent, however, took the stand that the notice was not in terms of the registered lease deed, in particular clause 33(a), which according to it, required the petitioner to give at least six (6) months prior written notice, if it opted for renewal of the lease, failing which the lease deed would stand terminated on the expiry of the lease tenure. The central issue, therefore, which arose for consideration before the learned arbitrator, was precisely this. Therefore, all that the learned arbitrator was required to do, was to construe the import of the three documents placed before him.

5. I may only record that though the terms sheet, the draft lease deed and the addendum bear the same date, i.e., 18.05.2010, apparently, the term sheet was executed first in point of time, followed by the draft lease deed and lastly by the addendum.

5.1 Therefore, for the sake of convenience I propose to refer to various clauses in each of the three documents followed by the relevant clause in the registered lease deed.

5.2 Clause 2 of the terms sheet provided for a tenure of three years after the expiry of 90 days from the date of issue of the said term sheet which is referred to as letter. The clause went on to confer an option for renewal of lease for a further, singular term of three years on the same terms and conditions as contained in the draft lease deed, subject to increase in rent, as referred to in clause 9 of the terms sheet. Notably, there is no reference to an obligation to issue a prior written notice for renewal of lease.

5.3 The draft lease deed, in clause 1, while providing a tenure of three years, also gave the petitioner an option to re