J.S.Khehar, J.

1. Through the instant arbitration case the petitioner seeks the appointment of an arbitrator in furtherance of clause (M) of the lease deed dated 12.1.2007. Clause (M) of the lease deed is being extracted hereunder :-

"In case of any dispute, both the parties shall resolve the same through arbitration as per the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The place of arbitration shall be at Ludhiana & the language of the Award shall be in English."

It is also not necessary to narrate the sequence of facts leading upto the filing of this petition. After the registration of the lease deed dated 12.1.2007, the tenancy was to commence on 15.1.2007. In furtherance of the execution of the aforesaid lease deed under reference the respondents paid an advance of Rs. 10,000/-. The aforesaid lease was executed for a period of three years, commencing from 15.1.2007, and expiring on 14.1.2010. As per the lease deed, a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- was payable as rent annually by the respondents to the petitioner. The pleadings of this case reveal that the registration costs (for executing the lease deed) were also incurred by the respondent.

2. A dispute is stated to have arisen between the parties, wherein the petitioner is demanding rent from the respondent, whereas the respondent is denying any liability.

3. In the first instance, the petitioner issued a notice to the respondents date 14.2.2007 (Annexure P2) directing the respondents to pay the lease amount to the petitioner. Similarly another notice dated 19.3.2007 (Annexure R-5) was issued by the petitioner to the respondents. In the aforesaid legal notice the petitioner reiterated his request to the respondents to pay the lease amount. Additionally, he made a request to the respondents to nominate an arbitrator in terms of clause (M) of the lease deed, extracted hereinabove.

4. The respondents neither paid the lease amount nor nominated any arbitrator. In response to the legal notice issued by the petitioner the respondents addressed communications to the petitioner informing him that no lease amount was payable on account of the fact that the petitioner had failed to hand over physical possession of the premises in question to the respondent. Even during the course of the hearing of the present arbitration case the claim of the respondents is, that the lease deed dated 12.1.2007, was never given effect to, and as such, no payment is due from the respondents to the petitioner.

5. It is not a matter of dispute that the lease deed dated 12.1.2007, was executed between the petitioner on the one side, and the respondents on the other. Due execution of the lease also established from the fact that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was paid by the respondents to the petitioner on 15.1.2007, as also from the fact that the expenses incurred in the execution of the lease deed dated 12.1.2007, were borne by the respondents. Thus viewed, there can be no doubt about the fact that the lease deed dated 12.1.2007, was duly executed.

6. Whether or not the lease amount, as claimed by the petitioner, is payable by the respondents, is a question of dispute arising under the deed referred to above. The same is to be adjudicated at the hands of the arbitrator in terms of clause (M), extracted hereinabove. It is apparent that the claim of the petitioner and the counter claim of the respondents can only be adjudicated upon by an arbitrator in terms of clause (M) of the lease deed.

7. In spite of the aforesaid conclusions, it is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, that the arbitration clause in the lease deed dated 12.1.2007, is not in consonance with the law, and is in clear violation of the mandatory provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 . It is, therefore, the vehement contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, that it would not be just and appropriate for this Court to appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate upon the dispute raised by the p