The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's authority to refer parties to mediation, appoint an arbitrator, and allow further interim measures of protection under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

ORDER

I.A. 14735/2022 (for exemption)

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

This application stands disposed of.

O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 266/2022 & I.A. 14736/2022 (for ex parte ad interim orders)

1. The present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ["the Act"] has been filed by the petitioner seeking interim measures of protection in anticipation of arbitration proceedings between the parties under a Lease Deed dated 13.06.2019 ["the Deed"], whereby the petitioner gave an immovable property [E-3, Ansal Villas, Khasra Nos. 785 and 786, Satbari Village, New Delhi-110074] ["the Property"] on lease to the respondent herein.

2. The Deed records that the Property was leased out to the respondent for a period of three years commencing 01.06.2019 at a lease rent of Rs. 2,50,000/- per month. Clause 15 of the Deed contains an arbitration clause by which the parties have agreed to resolution of disputes by a sole arbitrator. Delhi has been designated as the venue of the arbitration, and exclusive jurisdiction has been vested in Courts in New Delhi.

3. The allegation of the petitioner is that the respondent has failed to vacate the property on expiry of the Deed by efflux of time.

4. The petitioner has filed a civil suit bearing No. CS-DJ/382/2022, inter alia seeking a decree of possession and mesne profits, which is pending before the Court of the learned Additional District Judge, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi. In the said suit, the respondent has filed an application under Section 8 of the Act, praying for rejection of the suit, and a direction relegating the parties to arbitration.

5. Mr. Shiv Charan Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the suit was filed by the petitioner herein mistakenly, overlooking the arbitration clause. He undertakes that, in view of the arbitration clause contained in the Deed, the petitioner will withdraw the said suit on the next date of hearing before the learned Trial Court, which is scheduled for 12.09.2022.

6. Mr. Narendra M. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent, submits, upon instructions, that the respondent has no objection to a reference being made to arbitration in these proceedings so that the disputes between the parties can be resolved finality. Learned counsel jointly submit that the arbitration may be held under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Shershah Road, New Delhi-110503 ["DIAC"].

7. However, learned counsel for both parties submit that they would like to explore the possibility of an amicable resolution of their disputes through mediation.

8. Having regard to these submissions, I am of the view that it would be appropriate to refer the parties to mediation, and also appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate their disputes in the event the mediation proceedings are unsuccessful.

9. The only question which remains is with regard to an interim arrangement that can operate until the matter is either settled between the parties, or the arbitral tribunal is constituted, and has had an opportunity to consider the application of the parties for interim direction under Section 17 of the Act. In this regard, the parties are ad idem that the respondent is paying a monthly lease rent of Rs.2,87,500/- which the petitioner is accepting every month. The parties may continue with this arrangement without prejudice to their rights and contentions in the arbitral proceedings.

10. Mr. Garg further seeks appointment of a Local Commissioner in order to inspect the premises to ensure that the fixtures and fittings and articles, mentioned in Schedule 1 of the Deed [Page 25 to 29 of the petitioner's list of documents], are available at the Property. Mr. Sharma has no objection to a joint inventory being prepared by a Local Commissioner appointed by this Court, alongwith one representative each of the petitioner and the respondent, subject to the result of the arbitral proceedings.

11. Having regard to