Point of Law: Terms of lease agreement clearly indicate that the suit schedule land was already put to use for commercial purposes by earlier lessee. Therefore, Section 2 (1) (C ) (vii) is attracted and dispute inter se between the appellant and the respondents is a commercial dispute.

JUDGMENT :

P.NAVEEN RAO, J.

Heard Sri M.Surender Rao, learned senior counsel for Sri Zeeshan Adnan Mahmood learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Mohith Reddy learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This appeal is filed against the order dated 27.12.2021 passed in Arbitration O.P.No.72 of 2021 on the file of XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. The appellant is the owner of large extent of land in Survey No. 403/P, Durgam Cheruvu, Shaikpet village. On the above land, it has developed a portion of the land towards eco-tourism and party area named “DURGAM CHERUVU ECO TOURISM DECK AND PARTY AREA”. Earlier said property was leased out to another licensee. But differences arose between the owner and licensee leading to termination of lease. Consequently, it has called for tenders to grant fresh lease and in the process, the first respondent was identified as a new lessee.

3. Briefly noted to the extent relevant, the facts are as under:

(i) The first respondent-company is a subsidiary company of the second respondent company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013 and is actively engaged in running several restaurants, canteens etc. The first respondent and the Appellant had entered into Lease agreement dated 28.02.2019 with respect to property called as “Durgam Cheruvu Eco Tourism Deck and Party Area” belonging to respondent located in Sy.No.403/P at Durgam Cheruvu, Shaikpet village and Mandal, Hyderabad (for brevity called as schedule property) totally admeasuring 12,391.27 square yards. As per the terms and conditions stipulated in the Deed of Lease, the first respondent was inter alia granted permission for operating and maintaining “Durgam Cheruvu Eco Tourism Deck and Party Area” for a period of ten years.

(ii) Though relationship started on a high note, soon differences cropped up leading to exchange of correspondence and hurling of allegations on one another. The differences are primarily on taking over possession of the subject property and payment of lease amount. While lessee alleged that he was unable to commence operations as premises was not handed over, the lease deed was not registered and non removal of pre-existing fixtures, permanent structures, breweries etc., the lessor contended that unfettered possession was already granted, that the registration of lease agreement is the responsibility of the lessee, that it is the responsibility of the lessee to remove all fixtures, permanent structures, breweries as the property was handed over on ‘as is where is basis’.

(iii) The pandemic seem to have added to already strained relationship between the parties.

(iv) The first respondent submitted a representation dated 31.08.2020 to the Hon’ble Minister for Prohibition and Excise, Sports & Youth Services, Tourism and Culture and Archeology, Telangana, requesting for waiver of rent for a period of thirty three (33) months from July, 2019 to March, 2021 contending that the first respondent was prevented from commencing its commercial activity due to the reasons attributable to the appellant. It was further indicated in the said letter that the onset of Covid-19 pandemic had further handicapped the first respondent and prevented it from initiating any activity on the site.

(v) Vide letter No.509/TGPMU/A1/2020, dated 15.03.2021 the Department for Youth Advancement and Culture was pleased to grant the first respondent waiver of rent for the period June, 2019 to December, 2019 and April – September, 2020 and directed to commence/recommence its facilities with immediate effect and upon doing so request of first respondent for waiver of rent for the period from October, 2020 to March, 2021 would be considered by the appropriate authority.

(vi) Vide representation dated 09.04.2021 the first respondent informed the appellant that it has commenced the works and that it required an additional period of six months to complete the construction and developmental activity undertaken by it on the site a