The court emphasized the unbiased adjudication of disputes between the parties and rejected the contention of the petitioners to appoint an arbitrator of their choice, in line with the legal principle established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Coordinate Benches of the Court.

JUDGMENT

(Oral)

The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.

1. The above captioned first four petitions have been preferred under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of Arbitrators for adjudication of disputes between the parties.

2. Since the relief sought by the petitioners in these petitions is more or less similar against a common respondent, therefore, with the consent of counsel for the parties, these petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

3. Petitioner No.1 in the above captioned first petition [ARB. P. 661/2021] is a proprietorship firm at L-81, Shopping arcade, Hotel Hyatt Regency, Bhikaiji Cama Place, New Delhi and petitioner No.2 is the proprietor.

4. In the third captioned petition, [ARB. P. 667/2021], petitioner No.1 is a partnership firm and petitioner No.2 is the partner of the firm, who are having their office L- 79, Shopping arcade, Hotel Hyatt Regency, Bhikaiji Cama Place, New Delhi.

5. Petitioner No.1/firm in first captioned petition and third captioned petition are similar. According to petitioner firm, on 01.09.1982 a license agreement along with a supplementary agreement was entered between petitioner (previously known as M/s Virender Kumar & Co.) and respondent in respect of shops in question, which was renewable every five years at the option of petitioner. The case of petitioner is that after change of name of petitioner/firm from M/S Virender Kumar & Co. to M/S Sital Dass Sons, an additional space adjacent to shop L-79 viz L-79 Extn. (Renumbered as L-81) (273 sq. ft.) in the same shopping arcade was granted by the respondent to M/S Sital Dass Sons vide supplementary agreement dated 10.08.1984 and the terms of original license agreement dated 01.09.1982 were to be read along with agreement dated 10.08.1984. Vide letter dated 01.01.1992, M/S Sital Dass Sons through its partners informed the respondent that they shall be operating under two different names i.e. M/S Sital Dass Sons represented by Rajendra Kumar Rakyan in shop No. L-79 ( 490 sq. ft.) and the other represented by Mr. Jitendra Rakyan in shop no. L-79 Extn. (Renumbered as L-81)(273 sq. ft.).

6. In the second petition [ARB. P. 665/2021], petitioner No.1 is a partnership firm and petitioner No.2 is the partner of the firm, at L-73, Shopping arcade, Hotel Hyatt Regency, Bhikaiji Cama Place, New Delhi. Petitioner No.1 had entered into a license agreement as well as supplementary agreement, both dated 09.09.1992, with respondent in respect of shop in question, which was renewable every five years at the option of respondent, who had further vide letter dated 0 1.04.1996 transferred the ownership of the said shop from petitioner No.1 to petitioner No.2.

7. In above captioned fourth petition [ARB. P. 668/2021], petitioner No.1/firm who was earlier a partnership firm, by virtue of a dissolution deed dated 01.04.2015, became a sole proprietorship firm and petitioner No. 2 as the sole proprietor, at L-78, shopping arcade, Hotel Hyatt Regency, Bhikaiji Cama Place, New Delhi. In respect of shop in question, a license agreement along with supplementary agreement both dated 18.02.1992 were executed between erstwhile petitioner/firm and the respondent, which was renewable every five years.

8. According to petitioners in these petitions, on the ground that the internal fittings of shopping arcade were nearly 40 years old and were in urgent need for repair and it was no longer financially profitable to continue with the shopping arcade, the respondent vide notice dated 29.05.2020 revoked the license in respect of shop No. L-79 extn (L-81); L-79, license LARB. 73 and L-78 w.e.f. 01.06.2020.

9. The petitioners contend that the petitioners were in exclusive possession of the shops in question and the aforesaid notice did not mention any violation of the terms and conditions of the license/lease agreement by petitioners. Further submitted that petitioners had right to carry on