Point of Law :
even a trespasser could not be evicted forcibly and a person in illegal occupation of the land has to be evicted following the procedure prescribed by law. The respondent therefore could not have resorted to taking over possession of the leased premises from the appellants without adhering to a procedure known to and recognized by law

JUDGMENT :

Sri Justice Sanjay Kumar, J.

1. This appeal, under Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 2015’), was filed against the order dated 30.08.2019 passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court-cum-XXIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in C.O.P.No.74 of 2019. The said petition was filed by Saptarishi Hotels Pvt. Ltd, Hyderabad, and Maha Hotels Projects Pvt. Ltd. Hyderabad, the appellants herein, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, ‘the Act of 1996’), to restrain National Institute of Tourism & Hospitality Management, Hyderabad, the respondent, from dispossessing them from the petition schedule property, viz., an extent of land admeasuring Acs.3.00 guntas in Survey No.91 (part), Telecomnagar, Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District. By the order under appeal, the Commercial Court dismissed the petition.

2. Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Limited had allotted and transferred an extent of Acs.6.00 guntas in Survey No.91 of Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, to the respondent for setting up a star hotel. Thereupon, the respondent issued an advertisement in daily newspapers on 28.02.2009 proposing to set up a four-star hotel on ‘Build, Operate and Transfer’ (BOT) basis under Public-Private Partnership mode and invited proposals through a competitive bidding process. Upon acceptance of the appellants’ proposal, a lease agreement for a period of 33 years was executed by and between the appellants and the respondent on 04.11.2010. They also entered into a Development & Management Agreement on 10.08.2011.

3. While so, owing to delay in execution of the project, the respondent issued termination notice dated 23.07.2016, alleging that the appellants had committed breach of trust and violation of the lease and the development & management agreements and terminated them with immediate effect. The respondent requested the appellants to hand over the project site before 30.07.2016 and pay it a sum of Rs.4,03,74,225/-. The respondent cautioned the appellants that in the event they failed to do so, it would initiate appropriate legal action against them. The appellants replied, vide letter dated 30.08.2016, citing the reasons for the delay in execution of the project and sought withdrawal of the termination notice. The respondent however encashed the bank guarantee furnished by the appellants on 03.10.2016.

4. Thereupon, arbitration proceedings were initiated at the behest of the appellants in terms of Article 11.2 of the Lease Agreement dated 04.11.2010 and Article 14.2 of the Development & Management Agreement dated 10.08.2011. The Arbitral Tribunal comprised two retired Supreme Court Judges and a retired Judge of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh and Calcutta High Courts. This Tribunal was constituted on 01.03.2017.

5. The appellants raised the following claims before the Arbitral Tribunal:

(a) ‘To declare that the Termination Notice dated 23.7.2016 of both the Lease Agreement dated 24.11.2010 and Development and Management Agreement dated 10.08.2011 as arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law and consequently restore the said Agreements and direct the Respondent to abide by the terms and conditions of the said agreements;

(b) Grant Specific performance of both the Lease Agreement dated 24.11.2010 and Development & Management Agreement dated 10.08.2011 to enable the Claimants to execute the development work and to reach the stage of revenue sharing and also for enjoyment of the same for a period of 33 years from the Commercial Operational Date (COD) of the hotel in the interest of justice;

(c) Award damages of Rs.90,00,75,000/- (Rupees Ninety Crores and Seventy Five Thousand only) as mentioned in the Annexure-I, in addition to Specific performance in favour of the Claimants and against the Respondent and also award the costs of the arbitral proceedings; and

(d) In the event of the Hon’ble Tribunal not granting Sp