The main legal point established is that the tenant's failure to vacate the property as claimed by the Arbitral Tribunal influenced the court's decision to set aside the award.

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. The present petitions have been filed challenging the impugned awards dated 12th April, 2007. By the impugned award, the three-member Arbitral Tribunal, awarded various claims in favour of the Respondent. The background of the petition is that one M/s Ganga Automobiles had entered into a lease agreement dated 14th October, 1994 with M/s Indomag Steel Technology Pvt. Ltd., now known as SMS Demag Pvt. Ltd. (claimant in the arbitration/respondent herein) (hereinafter "tenant") in respect of flats in Ganga Plaza 81/1, Adchini, Sri Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi. The said lease related to lower ground floor and ground floor. On 1 st November, 1997, M/s Pasupati Fincap Ltd. and M/s Shivani Textiles Limited (formerly M/s. Pasupati New Tec Ltd.) (respondents in the arbitration/petitioners herein) (hereinafter "Petitioners"), informed the tenants that they had purchased rights in the lower ground floor and ground floor of the property. The tenant i.e. the claimant attorned to the new owners and started paying rent. However, notice of termination was issued by the tenant on 20th December, 2001 by which the tenant informed the petitioner that they would continue to occupy the third floor and fourth floor. Disputes arose in respect of the said termination as the security deposit which was originally paid by the tenant to M/s Ganga Automobiles the earlier landlord, was not refunded.

2. The three-member Tribunal which was constituted held in favour of the tenant in the following terms: -

"To conclude, we hereby make the following award:

(a) the respondent is directed to pay to the claimant a sum of Rs.20,81,770/- against all the claims except the claim of interest and cost.

(b) The respondent is directed to pay to the claimant a sum of Rs. 08,74,344/- on account of interest on the above mentioned amount of Rs.20,81,770/-

(c) The respondent is directed to pay to the claimant a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- as cost of these proceedings.

(d) The counter-claim raised on behalf of the respondent is hereby rejected."

3. The grievances in the present petitions are two, namely: -

(i) That the arbitration clause does not apply qua the new owners of the property

(ii) That the learned Tribunal has failed to consider some extremely relevant and important facts.

4. Notice was issued in the petitions on 30th October, 2007. The petitions were dismissed for non-prosecution on 08th November, 2016 but were thereafter restored on 26th May, 2017. For the last two hearings, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent/tenant. The learned counsel for the Petitioners has made submissions on 10th April, 2019 and 11th April, 2019. None has appeared for the respondent/tenant on both dates. The court is accordingly proceeding to decide the matter.

5. The submission of Mr. Kaushik appearing for the Petitioners is that the tenant never vacated the two floors but continued to enjoy possession and occupation of the said floors. He supports his argument by relying upon letter dated 20 th December, 2001. He submits that the tenant by this letter had only agreed to vacate w.e.f. 31st December, 2001. In fact, it did not vacate. After the issuance of this letter, another letter dated 12th February, 2002 was issued, by which it was claimed by the tenant that it had vacated the ground floor. The tenant had sought refund of the security deposit vide these two letters in respect of the lower ground floor (upper basement) and the ground floor.

6. On 3rd April, 2002, the Petitioners refunded Rs. 3.75 lakhs towards part payment of the security deposit. Thereafter, however, the tenant demanded the remaining security deposit. However, on 16th December, 2002, the tenant again entered into two agreements, taking on rent, two portions of the property i.e. 523 sq. ft. on the ground floor of Ganga Plaza by one agreement and 180 sq. ft. on the ground floor of Ganga Plaza by a