The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 prevails over the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in matters of recovery of arrears of licence fees and eviction from public premises.

JUDGMENT

Mini Pushkarna, J. The petitioner impugns order dated 06.03.2023 passed by the learned Estate Officer. By way of the said order dated 06.03.2023, the learned Estate Officer has dismissed the application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act), by which the petitioner had sought rejection of the complaint pending before the learned Estate Officer filed on behalf of respondent no. 2 seeking arrears of licence fees from the petitioner herein for the public premises occupied on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Facts in brief are that the respondent no. 2 issued Notice Inviting Tender/bid dated 27.06.2018 for licensing non-air-conditioned space for operating "International Standard Spa, health club and swimming pool" at Ashoka Hotel, New Delhi. The petitioner participated in the tender process and emerged as a successful bidder. Thus, a Letter of Intent dated 13.12.2018 was issued by the respondent no. 2 to the petitioner.

3. Consequently, the petitioner and respondent no. 2 entered into a licence agreement dated 18.06.2019 in respect of space admeasuring 47,481.66 square feet situated at Ashoka Hotel, Chankayapuri, New Delhi. In accordance with the licence agreement, the petitioner was granted a licence for running and operating an international standard spa, health club and swimming pool from the licensed premises for a period of 10 years w.e.f. 18.03.2019 to 17.03.2029. The said licence was granted to the petitioner on a monthly licence fees of Rs.40,53,000/-.

4. Pursuant to the licence agreement, the petitioner started construction work at the licensed premises. Subsequently, petitioner received formal stoppage letter dated 28.01.2020 from New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) under Section 248 of the NDMC Act, 1994 for stoppage of preparatory works at the licensed premises. The NDMC directed for stoppage of work at the licensed premises on the ground that no sanction plan or completion certificate has been granted to respondent no. 2 by the NDMC.

5. The petitioner vide letters dated 27.02.2021, 19.03.2021, 23.07.2021, 02.09.2021 and 03.09.2021 sought for information from respondent no. 2 with regard to the sanction plans/requisite approvals. Respondent no. 2 assured the petitioner that the completion certificate and requisite sanction plans from NDMC with regard to the licensed premises are being obtained. However, despite repeated requests, the respondent no. 2 failed to provide the petitioner with completion certificate and sanction plans/approvals for the licensed premises.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that it paid licence fees regularly w.e.f. from 18.06.2019 till March, 2020. It was only after the stoppage letter dated 28.01.2020 received from NDMC that the petitioner stopped paying licence fees to respondent no. 2. The petitioner till date has paid a sum of Rs.8,65,63,974/-.

7. On 26.11.2020, a meeting was held between respondent no. 2 and petitioner to resolve the issue of requisite sanctions/approvals in respect of the licensed premises for completion of work. In pursuance of the meeting dated 26.11.2020, respondent no. 2 appointed a Consultant through Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 07.04.2021 for obtaining completion certificates and sanction plans with respect to the licensed premises.

8. Meanwhile, a dispute arose between the parties with regard to payment of licence fees by the petitioner for the period when the licensed premises were rendered unusable. Thus, petitioner invoked arbitration in terms of the licence agreement, by virtue of notice dated 14.02.2022 for resolution of disputes between the parties. The respondent by communication dated 31.05.2022 disputed the reference to arbitration inter alia on the ground that the question of arrears of licence fees and other charges were to be decided under The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (PP Act).

9. In the meantime, respondent no. 2 institu