The arbitration clause in a Memorandum of Understanding does not govern disputes arising from leave and licence agreements lacking arbitration provisions, as such disputes fall under the jurisdiction of the Rent Control Act.

ORDER :

. In this petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act , 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) for appointment of arbitrator, in the light of the objections raised on behalf of the respondent, the questions that arise for consideration are - (i) whether the disputes between the parties can be referred to arbitration as per an arbitration clause in a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) executed between the parties, when the petitioner seeks to assert rights arising from leave and licence agreements executed between the parties and in the light of the position of law that where special courts / fora are available for determination of such disputes, arbitration cannot be resorted to; (ii) whether arbitration clause in the MoU can be the basis for seeking appointment of arbitrator when the disputes pertain to leave and licence agreements, which do not contain arbitration clauses; and (iii) whether a single invocation of the arbitration clause found in the MoU can lead to appointment of an arbitrator in the context of the three leave and licence agreements?

2. The facts giving rise to the said questions are that the petitioner entered into three separate leave and licence agreements dated 10.09.2013, duly registered with the office of the Sub-Registrar, to induct the respondent as its licensee for occupying four premises, which include two flats and two office spaces located at Panvel, District Raigad, Maharashtra. The leave and licence agreements were for a period of 36 months, from 15th day of October 2013 to 14th day of October 2016. On the very same day, a document styled as a MoU was executed between the petitioner and the respondent. This MoU indicated the intention of the petitioner to permit the respondent to occupy the said premises for a period of 15 years, by executing leave and licence agreements for periods of three years. The MoU is a notarized document and admittedly, it does contain an arbitration clause.

3. In pursuance of the said documents executed between the parties, the respondent occupied the premises. It is significant that the aforementioned documents recorded the intention of the respondent to start medical facilities and research centre. It appears that disputes erupted between the parties, as a consequence of which, on 10.04.2021, the petitioner issued legal notices to the respondent through its advocates in respect of the said premises, by specifically referring to the three leave and licence agreements. By these legal notices, the petitioner terminated the leave and licence agreements and demanded outstanding amounts allegedly due from the respondent.

4. Thereafter, on 16.04.2022, the petitioner sent another legal notice and referred to the fact that the respondent, in reply to the earlier notices, had denied any liability and thereupon invoked clause 7 of the aforesaid MoU to appoint a retired District and Sessions Judge as the sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties. The respondent did not send any communication in response to the invocation of the arbitration clause in the MoU, as a result of which, the petitioner filed the present petition.

5. The respondent appeared through counsel and the petition was taken up for hearing and disposal.

6. Ms. Gunjan Jayakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the objections raised on behalf of the respondent in the present petition are all unsustainable and that the disputes between the parties ought to be referred to arbitration by appointment of a sole arbitrator.

7. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that although the registered leave and licence agreements were executed between the parties, in the facts of the present case, special court or forum constituted for resolution of disputes between licensor and licensee under any of the special legislations, was not available and that the dispute would therefore, have to be decided by an ordinary civil court in district Raig