JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. T. Lalnunsiama, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondents.

2. This is an application filed by the petitioners under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act of 1996) for appointment of an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute which according to them has cropped up between the parties.

3. The petitioner No. 1 is an Association whose members are shop owners in Millennium Centre, located at Dawrpui, Aizawl and the petitioner No. 2 is an Association whose members run shops in the Millennium Centre building. According to the petitioners, the cause of action and the interest of both the two Associations being common, they have filed the instant petition.

4. The respondent No. 1, i.e., Millennium ‘Centre -Building Authority, Aizawl, Mizoram (the Authority) is a body corporate, constituted by the Govt. of Mizoram under the Registration Act, 1860 having its office at Aizawl, Mizoram and the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram is designated as the Chairman of the authority. The respondent No. 2 is the Executive Director of Millennium Centre authority who is responsible for the management of the authority.

5. The case of the petitioners is that the respondents and the petitioner. No. 1-Association executed lease agreement for shop units of Millennium Centre by executing individual lease agreement with each of the members of the petitioner No. 1-Association individually. As per the lease agreement for shop units of Millennium Centre, the amount of lease money payable to the lessee will be subject to revision by the Authority, after 91 years with effect from 3.11.2009 or at any time thereafter or/and thereafter at any interval of any 91 years or at such interval as may be approved by the Authority from time-to time and that the lessee agrees to pay such revised money without any reservation or protest. The same has been stated in paragraph No. 3 of the lease agreement.

6. Further, the second part of paragraph No. 3 of the lease agreement provides that in addition to the lease money, the lessee shall pay a sum of Rs. 600 for each shop for the maintenance charges of services and common areas per month which shall be revised by the Authority as required from time-to-time during the lease period depending on cost of actual maintenance. The said payment shall be made within 15 days of the close of each month.

7. According to the petitioners, the respondent-Authority of late has been making revision of the maintenance charges of services of common areas which adds up to more than the actual cost of maintenance and thereby causing heavy financial burden upon the petitioner-Association. As a result, the petitioners approached the respondent-Authority for redressal of their grievance, which, however, was not fruitful. Consequently they submitted a representation through their counsel on 21.7.2020 for referring the dispute to the sole arbitration of a person to be appointed by the Chairman of the Authority to adjudicate the dispute in terms of paragraph No. 34 of the lease agreement.

8. In response to the representation, the respondent-Authority through the respondent No. 2 vide Communication dated 12.12.2020 (Annexure 4) wrote back stating that the revision of the maintenance charge was reasonable and in fact there was deficit in the expense towards the maintenance are required to be compensated from other sources of income such as, parking contract, rent and hire charges, etc. Therefore, the representation for referring the matter to the arbitrator was regretted. Aggrieved with the reply, the petitioners are before this court through the instant arbitration petition.

9. Mr. T. Lalnunsiama, learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to the income and expenditure amount for the year ending on 31st March, 2019, prepared by the Chartered Accountant concerned submits that the expenditure towards repair and maintenance for the aforesaid period