The central legal point established is the arbitrability of the dispute as per the terms of the Lease Deed and the court's authority to appoint an arbitrator under Section 11(6)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Original Petition is filed under Section 11(6) (a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying to pass an order of appointing a sole arbitrator in accordance with Clause 23 of the Lease Deed dated 12.07.2019, to adjudicate upon the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the Lease Deed dated 12.07.2019.)

1. This petition has been filed under Section 11 (6) (a) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred as “the Act”), seeking to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent in terms of Clause 23 of the Lease Deed dated 12.07.2019.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and the respondent entered into a Lease Deed dated 12.07.2019 in respect of 20 flats, in a project known as “Sobha Serene” situate at Seenneerkuppam, off Porur – Poonamallee High Road, Chennai, for the purpose of operating service residential apartments to prospective tenants. As per the said lease deed a monthly rent payable is Rs.27,000/- per flat inclusive of maintenance, which aggregated to Rs.5,40,000/-. Apart from that, at the time of executing the lease deed, the petitioner paid an interest free security deposit of Rs.32,40,000/- by way of cheque. The petitioner had also spent huge amount for fixtures and fittings. While so, the petitioner received a legal notice dated 31.08.2019 from Sobha Developers Limited, through which the petitioner was put to notice about a Joint Venture Agreement entered into between Sobha Developers Limited and the respondent and that certain disputes arose regarding the same which were pending adjudication before an Arbitral Tribunal. From the said legal notice, it appears that an interim order dated 27.12.2016 was passed by the Arbitral Tribunal restraining the respondent from selling or creating any encumbrance in the schedule property.

3. He would further submit that at the time of entering into the lease deed, the respondent stated that he is an absolute owner of the schedule property. After the receipt of the legal notice dated 31.08.2019, the petitioner sent a notice to the respondent urging him to resolve the disputes between the respondent and Sobha Developers Limited or to refund all the amounts incurred by the petitioner towards the refurnishing and renovation of said 20 flats along with security deposits and all other expenses incurred along with 18% p.a. Though the respondent received the said legal notice, there was no response for the same. The petitioner has also lodged a complaint with the Police in respect of the respondent''s act. During the course of investigation, the respondent agreed for the termination of the lease deed and undertook in writing to return the security deposit of Rs.32,40,000/- on or before 31.01.2020. However, the respondent instead of making payments, has sent a legal notice dated 14.09.2020 making false claim against the petitioner. In response to the said notice dated 14.09.2020, the petitioner sent a reply notice rejecting all the claims made against the petitioner and called upon the respondent to return and refund the sum mentioned in the earlier legal notice dated 28.09.2019 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and take back the possession of the said 20 flats, failing which, the petitioner will be constrained to refer the dispute to arbitration in terms of Clause 23 of the lease deed dated 12.07.2019. The said notice was came to be returned. Therefore, the arbitral notice was also sent to the respondent by speed post. However, there was no response from the respondent. Hence, the present petition came to be filed and he prayed for an appointment of Arbitrator.

4. Though notice served and the name of the respondent is also printed in the causelists, there is no representation for the respondent either in person or through counsel, which shows the respondent is not interested to contest the case. Hence, this Court proceeds