JUDGMENT

Mohammad Rafiq, J. - These applications have been separately filed by thirteen petitioners under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying for appointment of Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences between the parties. Since all the applications raise identical question of law and that the facts are also similar, therefore, all are being decided by this common judgment by taking the facts of Arbitration Application No. 20/2017 as the basis.

2. As per the petitioner, the respondent, which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, is a builder and township developer engaged in real estate development works and operation of various projects. The respondent came up with its project of a golf resort at Agra Road situated in village Jamdoli. The petitioner purchased two golf studio units no. 1211 and 1408, both ad-measuring 315.79 square feet. Petitioners then leased out said golf units to respondent themselves, upon their representation and accordingly two registered lease and operation deeds dated 08.09.2011 were executed between the petitioner and the respondent. The lease and operation deed was initially executed for a period of twelve years. The respondent was required to pay a sum of Rs. 13000/- per month for initial three years and for next three years the lease amount was to be increased to Rs. 14550/- per month. For next three years, the sum was to be increased to Rs. 16303/- and for last three years the lease amount would be Rs. 18259/- respectively.

3. The respondent, after execution of lease and operation deed dated 08.09.2011, paid the lease amount till July, 2014, however no amount was paid to the petitioner from August, 2014 onward towards lease money to the petitioner till date. The respondent also failed to deposit any TDS. It is contended that a total sum of Rs. 7,59,840/- is outstanding as arrears of lease amount for the period from August, 2014 to September, 2016. Further a sum of Rs. 1,45,555.11 has accrued as interest on the said amount in terms of the said lease and operation deed. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 9,05,395.11 is outstanding and recoverable from the respondent. Similar is the position with regard to other tenant petitioners.

4. Mr. Jatin Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the petitioners approached the respondent on various occasions and tried to contact its officials in the office situated at Jaipur and requested them to release the arrears. Though bald assurances were given but actual payment was never made. The CMD of the respondent on 12.04.2015 assured the petitioner that arrears would be paid shortly within a week but no such payment was made. Copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 12.05.2015 has been placed on record. Reference is made to Section X(b) of the lease and operation deed, which provided for resolution of disputes by mechanism of arbitration. It is contended that the petitioner served a notice dated 13.10.2016 invoking arbitration clause, with acknowledgement due, which was duly served on the respondent. Even after lapse of 60 days as provided under the lease and operation deed, the respondent failed to respond to the notice demanding arbitration. Hence these applications.

5. Mr. Peeyush Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent, opposed the application and argued that the dispute in the present case is essentially between landlord and tenant in relation to rented premises and is not an arbitral dispute. Learned counsel referred to and relied on Section 18 of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short, ''the Act of 2001'') and argued that according to the aforesaid provision, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in the areas to which this Act extends, only the Rent Tribunal and no Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and decide the petitions relating to disputes between landlord and tenant and matters connected therewith and ancillary th