1. By means of this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioners, who are the landlords, are challenging the Award dated 5.3.2005 of the sole Arbitrator.

2. Two suits were filed by the tenant M/s Mesco Private Limited, previously known as Svedala Industries Pvt. Ltd., against the landlords, being suit Nos. 1565/2001 and 1566/2001. The first suit pertained to the rear portion (ground floor and basement) of the premises No. E-7/14, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi and which was let out by the landlords, Mr. Tikka Bijender Singh Bedi and others. The second suit pertained to the front portion (ground floor and basement) of the same premises whose landlords were Sonali Bedi and others. These suits were filed by the lessee, and who was the claimant in the arbitration proceedings, for refund of the security deposit and other related disputes arising pursuant to the lessee's vacation of the leased premises.

3. During the pendency of the suits, a common order dated 21.1.2003 was passed in both the suits referring the disputes to the arbitration of the Sole Arbitrator. The relevant portion of the order by which all the disputes between the parties were referred to Arbitration reads as under:-

“After hearing the counsel for the parties, and considering the nature of the controversy between the parties, I am of the view that this can be best resolved by arbitration. Senior counsel Mr. Nayyar, on instructions, states that the plaintiff is willing to have the disputes, which are subject matter of the suits, resolved by reference to a sole arbitrator who may be appointed by this Court. Mr. Mahajan, on instructions, from Mr. Tikka BS Bedi and RHS Chopra, who are present in the Court, state that they are also willing to have the disputes referred to a sole arbitrator to be nominated and appointed by the Court. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, I appoint Master Anup Kothari, partner of M/S Sathe & Kothari as the sole arbitrator to go into the disputes between the parties, which are subject matter of the suits as also the counter claims of the defendant that may be preferred relating to leasing of the premises in question to the plaintiff. It will be open to the parties to make their claims with regard to interest also.

Parties to appear before the Arbitrator on 15.2.2003 at 11 a.m. The Arbitrator shall give a reasoned award as expeditiously as possible. Fee of the Arbitrator is fixed at Rs.1,11,000/-(One lakh eleven thousand only) to

be shared by the parties equally subject to final directions, as may be given in the award.

Liberty granted.”

(Emphasis added)

4. It is relevant to note that this order was a consolidated order with respect to both the suits and certain I.As which were filed therein.

5. It is with respect to these aforesaid disputes relating to leasing of the premises that this Award has been passed thereby adjudicating upon the disputes which were referred to arbitration vide the order of this Court dated 21.1.2003.

6. Some relevant facts of the case are as under:-

By virtue of lease deeds and agreements for fittings and fixtures dated 9.5.1995, the landlords of the subject premises let out the two portions of the premises to the present respondent No.1(hereinafter referred to as the respondent). For the sake of convenience reference to the lease deeds hereinafter will whenever the context so requires will include reference also to the agreements of furniture and fixtures. Rent per flat was fixed at Rs. 39,000/-. Fixtures etc. charges were Rs. 9,500/- and for which seven agreements per flat were executed. The total of the rent including the charges for furniture and fixtures for both the flats was fixed at Rs.2,11,000/- per month. A security deposit totalling to Rs.34,20,000/- at the rate of Rs.17,10,000/- per flat was paid by the lessee to the lessors. Identical lease deeds and identical agreements for the furniture and fixtures were executed between the parties with respect