This application under Sections 11(5) & (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed on 11.07.2014 by Om Prakash Sharma, who has been substituted by his legal representatives owing to his death on 27.12.2014 by (i) his wife Smt. Krishna Sharma, (ii) his son Sanjay Sharma, (iii) his daughter Mrs. Sanyukta Gautam and (iv) his another daughter Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma.

2. Applicant in the application prayed for appointment of an independent Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute and differences between the applicants and non-applicants in respect of agreement dated 29.3.2007 executed between them.

3. Applicant is the sole Proprietor/Owner of Cinema Hall and his property is known as “Polovictory Cinema”. After thorough negotiation between parties, a License Deed with regard to part of the premises of the Polovictory Cinema was executed between applicant and respondent no. 2-M/s. Nirulas Corner House Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Nirulas/IInd Party-Respondent No.2 to this petition) on 29th March, 2007. As per aforesaid License Deed, Applicant agreed to permit IInd Party-Respondent No. 2 to run Restaurant, Bar, Pastry Shop, Snack Bar etc. on the ground floor portion admeasuring 2200 sq. feet of carpet area (super buildup area of 2750 sq. feet) as mentioned in License Deed. As per clause 2 of the aforesaid License Deed dated 29th March, 2007, the deed was effective for a period of 15 years from the date of starting of commercial operation with a right of renewal for further period of 15 years as per terms & conditions of the License Deed. There was a clause of lock-in period of 2 years during which License could not be terminated. Clause 38 provided that IInd Party-Respondent No.2 was having a right to terminate the License after lock-in period of 2 years by giving prior written notice of 3 months to applicant. As per clause 6 of the aforesaid License Deed, License fee was required to be paid to applicant with a minimum rate as mentioned in the License Deed. However, it was stipulated in the License Deed that the Licensee was liable to pay 9% of the net sales of items from Licensed premises, if the said amount exceed the License fee mentioned in the License Deed. For the purpose of calculation of the actual Licensee fee payable as per License Deed, respondents were liable to produce/show the record of actual net sales, so that the payable License fee could be calculated. It is alleged that both the respondents have not produced the actual record of sales so as to conceal the same just to avoid payment of higher License fee payable as per the License Deed. Besides License fee, Licensee were bound to pay maintenance charges as per clause 33 and other charges mentioned in the deed.

4. Shri L.L. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant has argued that according to clause 37 of the aforesaid Licensee deed, License could have been assigned by the Licensee and the IInd Party- Respondent No.2 assigned the same to respondent no.1 (Ist Party of this petition) viz. South Asian Hospitality Services Pvt. Ltd. vide assignment Deed dated 24th September, 2007 executed between respondents, which was acknowledged by applicant as well both of respondents on 17.10.2007. As per the terms of the aforesaid assignment agreement both the respondents were bound by the terms of License Deed dated 29.03.2007. The respondents were further aware of the fact that they had to complete the finishing work in time and in own manner. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was executed at Jaipur on 11.03.2008 whereunder respondent-Ist Party agreed to bear the expenses on behalf of applicant making payment of interior cost, architect cost and generator cost etc. on the terms and condition mentioned therein. Respondent-Ist Party sent a chart in excel sheet by e-mail showing payment of Rs.19,41,539/- alleged to have been paid by respondents on behalf of applicant in terms of MoU dated 11.03.2008, but no details of payment and actual bill has been giv