The court determined that the landlord-tenant dispute constitutes an arbitrable issue and appointed an arbitrator due to the parties' failure to agree on one.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

(Video-Conferencing)

1. This is a petition under section 11(6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1996 Act"), seeking reference of the dispute between the parties to arbitration.

2. The facts of the case, as set out in the petition, which disclose the existence of arbitrable dispute, may be enumerated thus:

(i) The petitioner owns the premises at E-8,East of Kailash New Delhi 110065. Lease, in respect thereof, was granted to the defendant, who is the sole proprietor of an establishment, named The Pet Store - with a registered lease deed dated 27th June, 2018.

(ii) The lease covered the basement and part of the ground floor of the aforesaid property (hereinafter referred to as "the property"). The respondent was required to pay rent @. 8,50,000/- plus GST per month which could be increased by 10% every three years. The tenancy was over a period of fifteen years with the initial seven years stipulated as a lock-in period.

(iii) Consequent to taking the aforesaid premises on lease, the petitioner states that she, and her husband Dr Manmohan Sharma, undertook large scale renovations of the property, so as to make it serviceable as a veterinary hospital. These renovations also covered part of the ground floor, the entire first floor and the entire second floor and the entire third floor of the property, which were taken on lease by another concern, stated to be of the respondent namely The Max Vets Hospitals Private Limited, vide lease deed dated 27th June, 2018.

(iv) Rent, for the month of June 2018, was waived by the petitioner. The respondent paid rent for the month of July 2018, from the personal account of the respondent and her husband, and for the months of August, September, October and November 2018 from the account of The Max Vets Hospitals Private Limited. From January 2019 onwards, rent was paid from the account of The Pet Store, However, it is alleged that no rent has been paid in December 2018.

(v) The petition further alleges that the respondent deducted, from the rent, for the period 20th July, 2018 to 20th July, 2019, Rs.85,000/- per month towards TDS, but did not deposit the said amount, to the Income Tax authorities. Consequent to a demand by the petitioner, the respondent paid Rs.12,11,750/- by cheques, which was appropriated by the petitioner towards deduction of TDS and interest thereon.

(vi) The petition alleges that subsequent reconciliation of the accounts disclosed that the respondent had paid rent only for eight months, instead of nine months from July, 2018 to March, 2019, resulting in the respondent becoming liable to pay Rs.9,18,000/- for the month of December 2018.

(vii) It is further alleged that, after March 2020, the respondent has defaulted, in the payment of rent. For the period April to August, 2020, it is alleged that the respondent has short paid rent to the tune of Rs.30,14,050/-. A demand from the petitioner, to the respondent, to pay the unpaid rent, it is alleged, proved futile.

(viii) On 22nd August 2020, the petitioner addressed a notice to the respondent, calling on the respondent to pay Rs.30,14,050/- within 15 days, failing which the tenancy would stand terminated with effect from 20th September, 2020. The respondent was also notified that, in the event of such termination, she would become liable to pay arrears of rent till September 2020 along with rent for 58 months of the lock-in period, which would total to Rs.6,43,12,360/-.

(ix) The petitioners contention is that the tenancy stands terminated by operation of the relevant covenants of the lease deed and that, as a result, the aforesaid amounts have become payable by the respondent to the petitioner.

(x) The total claim of the petitioner a