JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Petitions filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,. 1996, O.P.No.500 of 2017 to set aside the impugned arbitral Award dated 27.11.2016 passed by the learned arbitrator and O.P.No.898 of 2017 has been filed to allow the claim made by the petitioner.)

1. Aggrieved over the award passed by the sole arbitrator directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.17 lakhs with interest Original Petition in 500 of 2017 has been filed and Original Petition 898 of 2017 has been filed against the dismissal of the counter claim and also awarding of Rs.17 lakhs payable by the respondent.

2. As the two original petitions are arising out of the same award, this Court is inclined to dispose of the two original petitions by way of a common Order.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of the Original Petitions is as follows:

The claimant has entered into an agreement with the respondent on 29.06.2012 for running of a Food Court cum Bar in the respondent property. It was originally run in the name of Akshaya Food Court. The agreement period is for six years and three months period is given to make the premises ready. Six years period was to commence thereafter. The claimant paid a sum of Rs.15 lakhs as refundable security deposit and non refundable deposit of Rs.10 lakhs. It is agreed between the parties that after fit out period of three months is over, the license fee payable is Rs.2,50,000/- for the first six months and thereafter, Rs.3,00,000/- per month for the remaining 2 ½ years period. There has to be an upward revision of 15% in the license fee in the next three years. In addition to license fee, the claimant has to pay 10% of bar sales after taxes to the sister concern of the respondent. The claimant has to pay a sum of Rs.13,50,000/- to Akshaya Food Court, which is not refundable. Though several obligations agreed upon by the respondent, the respondent has not performed the obligations. In fact, the sewerage connection is not obtained. The license contemplated in the agreement is also not obtained. Despite the claimant made investments for repairs and others, necessary license has not been obtained and did not make arrangement for 100 KV power and Air Conditioner provided by the respondent is not in working condition. In the meanwhile, the respondent terminated the license agreement. The claimant suffered a lot due to sudden termination of the license agreement. Hence, the claimant has made a total claim of Rs.1,96,65,000/- towards loss of profit, or in the alternative direct there respondent to refund the deposit a sum of Rs.80 lakhs with interest at the rate of 24% per annum.

4. The respondent denied the entire allegations and stated that on account of financial difficulty, the claimant could not invest any amount for the restoration of the bar cum restaurant. However, the claimant had been operating the bar from 22.09.2012 and orders were placed with TASMAC. The license fee has not been paid regularly and the license has not been paid from October 2012 to April 2013 and from April 2014 to and August 2014. After deducting the security deposit of Rs.15 lakhs, a sum of Rs.21,50,000/- was payable to the claimant towards license fee. In March 2014, when the claimant had raised the issue of repairing the roof and the first floor, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- has been paid by the respondent. The contention of the claimant that he was forcibly evicted is denied. The claimant has violated the contract and the contract was terminated and the claimant was evicted. Besides, the respondent has also claimed counter claim of Rs.70,88,000/- towards the outstanding sum towards arrears of license fee along with interest at the rate of 24% p.a.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed:

i] Whether the claimant and respondent have performed their respective obligations under the License agreement dated 29.07.2012?

ii] By whom was the breach if any, committed of the license agreement?

iii] Whether the