M.L. Mehta, J. (Oral)

1. This is a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The admitted facts of the case are that vide an agreement dated 01.05.2005 executed between the respondents and M/s. Sagar Ratna Hotels P. Ltd. (M/s. SRHP), the commercial premises being premises No. 33, 35 & 36, Pocket C-9, Sector 7, Rohini, Delhi situated on the ground & first floors, was agreed to be provided by the respondents to M/s. SRHP for running its outlet of restaurant on the terms and conditions as stipulated therein. One of the terms being that the duration of the agreement was for a period of ten years from the date of opening the restaurant, which could be increased further for such a period on the terms and conditions, as may be mutually agreed between the parties. Another important term as stipulated in Clause 19 of the said agreement is that both the parties could terminate this agreement by serving three months notice in writing in the event of there being violation of any of the terms and conditions thereof. In the case of termination, M/s. SRHP was to hand over the possession of the premises along with the fixtures etc. to the respondents. Further, one of the important term as stipulated in Clause 20 is that in the event of expiry of the agreement, the respondents could not use the name "SAGAR RATNA" or any other name identical to it, and could not continue the restaurant business for a further period of seven years.

2. After the agreement dated 01.05.2005, another supplementary agreement dated 17.06.2011 was executed between the respondents, the petitioner herein and SRHP. By virtue of this agreement, the present petitioner acquired all the rights of SRHP in respect of the restaurant business that was being carried by SRHP in the suit premises. All the terms and conditions as stipulated in agreement of 01.05.2005 executed between the respondents and SRHP were to be applicable to the petitioner herein. In other words, the petitioner stepped into the shoes of SRHP qua the suit premises and the restaurant business being carried therein on all the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 01.05.2005.

3. The business was being carried by the petitioner for quite some time. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have unauthorizedly dispossessed it in connivance with some of its staff officials on 24.09.2012. It is alleged that this is in gross violation of the terms of the agreement of 01.05.2005 as also of the supplementary agreement of 17.06.2011. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that a notice of termination of the agreement was sent by the respondents on 23.09.2012 by speed post. A look at that notice would show that certain differences and disputes were sought to be raised by the respondents. The petitioner was also called upon for rendition and settlement of account, and was asked to give the possession of the premises and fixtures immediately. The said notice is seen to have been sent by the speed post on 23.09.2012 at about 10 p.m. It is submitted by the learned counsel that this notice was received only on 25.09.2012, but, in the meanwhile, the petitioner was dispossessed from the premises, and for which, the police complaints were made on 24.09.2012 itself. It is submitted by the counsel for the plaintiff that as per Clause 19 of the agreement dated 01.05.2005, the termination of the same can only be done by either party by serving three months notice in writing in the event of any violation of the term/condition thereof, and that there was no such notice ever given by the respondents. The said notice of 23.09.2012 is alleged to be not in consonance with the Clause 19 of the agreement. Further, it is submitted that in any case, the respondents could not carry on the business of restaurant for seven years as per Clause 20.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the persons who were named in the petition were ei