Point of Law: Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - Arbitration agreement between the parties and invocation of arbitration are not disputed by either side.

JUDGMENT :

SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J.

The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.

1. The above noted three petitions have been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes pending inter se parties and for grant of cost of petition in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent.

2. The background of the case is that petitioners have been allured into investing their hard-earned money on the basis of false promises, misrepresentation by the respondent, who is said to be a Developer constructing commercial complexes, hotels, residential buildings etc. According to petitioners, respondent deceived the petitioners by showing brochure/prospectus, making false representations and of having false permissions and sanctions from the concerned authorities about the project in question. Respondent assured the petitioners having completed all legal formalities regarding execution of the project and of good monthly return by way of rent of the said premises to be leased on the basis of lock-in period for a period of 18 years or any other period. Thus, the petitioners believing the representations of the respondent, invested their hard-earned money in the properties of respondent.

3. In the first captioned petition [ARB. Pet. No. 624/2021], petitioner is the owner of Unit No. 23-B on the Ground Floor of MTRB situated at the Soul City Mall at Plot No. 4, Sector 13, Dwarka City Centre, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075. The case of petitioner is that as agreed with respondent, upon payment of a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- (forty Lacks) as sale price pertaining to the Unit No. 23 B, admeasuring Built Up area 9.2903 Sq. Meters ( 100 Sq. Feet) and having super area 18.5806 Sq. Meters (200 Sq. Feet) at ground floor of the plot bearing no. 4 situated at Sector 13 Dwarka New Delhi known as “Soul City Mall” they entered into a “Hotelier Buyers” agreement dated 11.01.2014.

4. As per Hotelier Buyer Agreement, a separate lease deed in respect of property in question was to be executed giving the possession, control and management of the said unit to the hotelier to sub lease/sub license/assign the said shop/unit for the management as suitable for the purpose. Subsequently sale deed dated 04.02.2014 was also registered in the office of sub registrar, SR-II, Basai Darapur Delhi. Thereafter, petitioner and respondent also entered into a lease agreement dated 17.04.2014 with the respondent for a period of 18 years at a monthly rent of Rs. 40,000 per month commencing from 18.01.2014, which was subject to 15% increase after every three years and interest @ 9% was to be paid for any delay in payment of monthly rent. According to petitioners, the respondent continued to pay the rent till March, 2016 but thereafter stopped paying the monthly rent.

5. Similar are the grounds put-forth in other two petitions. Petitioner in the above captioned second petition [ARB. Pet. No. 625/2021] is the owner of two Units bearing No. 23-F and 23-I on the Ground Floor of MTRB situated at the Soul City Mall at Plot No. 4, Sector 13, Dwarka City Centre, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075, who had paid a sum of Rs. 46,50,000/- (Forty Six Lacs Fifty Thousand only) as sale price pertaining to the Unit No. 23-1 admeasuring Built Up area 9.2903 Sq. Meters (100 Sq. Feet) and having super area 18.5806 Sq. Meters (200 Sq. Feet) and Rs. 93,00,000/- (Ninety Three Lacs only) as sale price pertaining to the Unit No. 23-F admeasuring Built Up area 18.5806 Sq. Meters (200 Sq. Feet) and having super area 37.1612 Sq. Meters (400 Sq. Feet) at ground floor of the “Soul City Mall.” Petitioner herein also had entered into a “Hotelier Buyers” agreement dated 15.04.2014, sale-deed 18.06.2014 and lease deed dated 16.07.2014 with the respondent. According to the lease deed, respondent had to pay rent @ Rs. 80,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- respectively for both the units to the petitioner. However, after March, 2016, respondent stopped