1. The challenge in this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996, (‘Act’), by the Petitioner Aspire Investments Pvt. Ltd. (‘ASPL’) is to an interim Award dated 26th June 2014 passed by the sole Arbitrator dismissing the application filed by the Petitioner under Order XII Rule 6 CPC read with Section 31 of the Act.

Background

2. The background to the present petition is that the premises at Flat Nos. F 601-608 and F 610-619 on the 6th Floor of Aditya Tower Building, Plot No.5, Laxmi Nagar, District Centre, Delhi was given on lease by the Petitioner to the Respondent Nexgen Edusolutions Pvt. Ltd. (‘NEPL’) on a monthly rent of Rs.1,50,000 under lease dated 27th March 2008. Although the lease deed stated that the lease was for a period of ten years admittedly the lease deed was unregistered and, therefore, it was in effect a month to month tenancy. Initially for a period of three months the Respondent was required to pay Rs.75,000 per month to account for the period to make the leased premises habitable. The full rent of Rs.1,50,000 was payable from 27th June 2008 onwards. The Respondent paid the Petitioner Rs.9 lakhs as security deposit and advance rent for the initial three months.

3. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent failed to pay rent after taking possession of the leased premises. Despite several reminders the default continued. By a notice dated 13th October 2008, the Petitioner terminated the tenancy. The Respondent was asked to vacate and hand over the possession of the leased premises on or before 1st November 2008.

4. In its reply dated 23rd October 2008, the Respondent contended that it had to repair the roof top and the expenses incurred thereby was required to be reimbursed by the Petitioner. It maintained that the lease deed was typed on requisite stamp paper and, therefore, there was no question of month to month tenancy. The Respondent claimed Rs.35.5 lakhs from the Petitioner reserving its right to sue the Petitioner.

Suit filed by the Petitioner

5. The Petitioner then filed CS (OS) 192 of 2009 in this Court against the Respondent for recovery of possession, arrears of rent with the prayer that the Respondent should be directed to hand over physical possession of the leased premises to the Petitioner. Along with the suit, the Petitioner also filed IA No. 1286 of 2009 under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC seeking directions to pay the Petitioner mesne profits and damages. In the suit, Respondent filed a counter-claim seeking a decree against the Petitioner in the sum of Rs.30,75,155 towards repair of the premises and Rs.3,52,750 towards the repair of the roof along with pendente lite and future interest, Rs.50 lakhs towards the loss of business opportunity, reputation and goodwill and Rs.20 lakhs on account of mental agony, harassment etc. The Respondent also filed IA No. 5332/2009 under Section 8 of the Act seeking reference of the disputes to arbitration.

6. In its order dated 14th July 2009, the Court noted that with the Respondent being unable to show that it had paid the monthly rent under the lease deed from 27th June 2008, the prayer in IA No. 1286/2009 under Order XXXIX Rule 10 CPC ought to be granted. The Court noted that the Respondent sought one week’s time to bring the pay order in the sum of Rs.18 lakhs without prejudice to its rights and contentions. On 24th July 2009, Mr. Santosh Mangal, a Director of the Respondent, was present in Court and made a statement to the effect that he had on that day paid the Petitioner a sum of Rs.4,89,140 being the first instalment of arrears of rent @ Rs.1,50,000 less TDS for the period 1st August 2008 to 1st July 2009. He undertook to pay the next instalment of the same amount on 31st August 2009 and the third instalment of the same amount on or before 30th September 2009. He undertook to pay the current rent as and when it would fall due from 1st August 2009. The Court then disposed of the application under Order XXXIX R