The disputes regarding recovery of lease amount were found to be arbitrable and did not fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Rent Controller.

JUDGMENT :

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.

1. Vide this common order, ARB Nos.160 and 161 of 2021 (O&M) are being decided. Rejoinders filed on behalf of the petitioner to the replies filed by the respondent in both the cases are taken on record.

2. Both the petitions have been preferred under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an independent Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. Since common question of law and facts are involved, therefore, facts are being culled out from ARB No.160 of 2021.

3. In ARB No.160 of 2021, a lease deed dated 09.02.2012 was executed between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner had invested his amount in purchase of Unit No.MS0302 having super area of 462.77 sq. meters on the 3rd floor in the commercial building known as DLF Mega Mall located at Phase-1, DLF City, Gurgaon. Sale deed was executed on 08.07.2005. The petitioner purchased the said property in order to lease it out so as to generate rental income. Petitioner was approached by the respondent to take the property on lease. Consequently, the lease deed dated 09.02.2012 was executed between the parties. The lease was to start w.e.f. 01.03.2011 and was to expire on 30.06.2022. The entire tenure of the lease was a lock-in period in view of clause 2 of the lease deed. However, the respondent terminated the lease prematurely in violation of the lease agreement and stopped remitting rent since April 2020. According to the aforesaid clause of the lease deed, neither party to the lease deed could have terminated the lease. The respondent was given possession of the property w.e.f. 01.03.2011. The initial rent was Rs.2,73,955/- per month and the same was enhanced in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease deed to an amount of Rs.3,64,634.11/- + GST @ 18% per month.

4. The respondent continued to remit the rent till March 2020 and thereafter the respondent stopped remitting rent to the petitioner. The respondent did not pay any heed to the communication made by the petitioner. The respondent could not have terminated the lease prior to 30.06.2022 as the entire tenure of the lease was a lock-in period. The respondent in violation of the terms and conditions of the lease deed terminated the lease prematurely and thereafter issued notice dated 03.07.2020 seeking refund of the security deposit of Rs.7,47,150/- furnished by it at the time of commencement of the lease.

5. Whereas in ARB No.161 of 2021, the lease deed dated 07.08.2019 was executed between the petitioner and the respondent. The petitioner had invested his amount in purchase of Unit No.MS0303 having super area of 346.80 sq. meters on the 3rd floor in the commercial building known as DLF Mega Mall located at Phase-1, DLF City, Gurgaon. Sale deed was executed on 08.07.2005. Consequently, the lease deed dated 07.08.2019 was executed between the parties. The lease was to start w.e.f. 15.12.2018 and was to expire on 30.06.2022. The respondent was given possession of the property w.e.f. 15.12.2018. The initial rent was Rs.2,48,431/- per month and the same was enhanced in accordance with the terms and conditions of the lease deed to an amount of Rs.2,73,293/- + GST @ 18% per month. An amount of Rs.7,45,293/- was furnished by the petitioner at the time of commencement of lease as security.

6. The respondent without having paid the rent since April 2020 intended to absolve its liability towards the rent due and payable to the petitioner and had issued the aforesaid notice. The said notice was replied by the petitioner vide reply dated 27.07.2020 whereby the respondent was advised to remit the outstanding rent and also to continue paying the rent for the remaining period of lease according to the terms and conditions of the lease. Thereafter the respondent through its personnel approached the petitioner for an amicable resolution of dispute, but ultimately owing to the conduct of the respondent, the effort to resolve the dispute cou