$~30 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on: 19.02.2024 + ARB. A. (COMM.) 13/2024 & I.A. 3815-3818/2024 M/S LA LAGOS SANTE HOSPITALITY PVT LTD..... Appellant Through: Mr. Anil K. Airi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anubhav Singh, Mr. Mudit and Mr. Nitin Kumar, Advocates.

versus M/S SURIDHI COMMERCIAL INFRA PRIVATE LIMITED &

ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Mitra, Mr. Ishan Roy Chowdhury and Ms. Harshita Gulati, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

J U D G M E N T

PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL)

1. The present appeal, under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [“the Act”], is directed against an order dated 23.01.2024 passed by a Sole Arbitrator in respect of disputes between the parties under a Lease Deed dated 06.02.2020, between the appellant and respondent No.1, and a Maintenance and Services Agreement dated

05.10.2019 between the appellant and respondent No.2.

A. Background

2. The Lease Deed is in respect of space owned by respondent No.1 in a commercial complex/shopping mall. The appellant has established a restaurant under the name “Cafe After Hours” in the leased premises.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Respondent No.2 is a maintenance agency responsible for maintenance and services in the common areas of the mall. Prior to entering into the lease deed between the appellant and respondent No.1, the parties had entered into a leave and licence agreement, and maintenance services had commenced under the Maintenance and Services Agreement dated

05.10.2019.

3. Disputes having arisen between the parties, the learned Arbitrator was appointed by an order of the Court dated 28.08.2023 in ARB.P.880/2023. The order specifically records that the learned Arbitrator would adjudicate the disputes between the parties in respect of both, the Lease Deed and the Maintenance and Services Agreement.

4. Although the statement of claims has not been placed on record, Mr. Anil K. Airi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, states that appellant-claimant has challenged the termination of the Lease Deed, dated 08.07.2023, and claimed damages. The respondents have defended the claims and also sought various counter-claims.

5. The impugned order has been passed on an application under Section 17 of the Act filed bythe respondents. Byvirtue of the said order, the learned Arbitrator has directed the appellant to remove two signages placed on the mall – one on the terrace and the second on the front elevation of the mall – to facilitate its renovation. The second direction of the learned Arbitrator is that the appellant must pay maintenance charges at the rate of Rs.3,08,000/- as required by a Settlement Agreement-cum-

Amendment dated 13.08.2020.

6. I have heard Mr. Airi and Mr. Gaurav Mitra, learned counsel for the respondents. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed B. Re: Removal of two signages

7. In the Maintenance and Services Agreement, learned counsel submit that the provision with regard to signages is provided in Clause

9.22, which reads as follows:

“9.22Displayofsignagesandboards:

The Occupant/Tenant shall put up any name/sign board, neon-light & publicity/advertisement material etc. only at the specified areas. In other words it shall not put up any name/sign board, neon-light & publicity/advertisement material etc. anywhere else inside or outside the premises. Any tax imposed by competent authorities in this regard shall be borne by the Occupant/Tenant. For any additional signage requirement over and above the designated place, the Occupant/Tenant/Tenant has to obtain permission in writing from the Management Agency on terms and conditions specifically decidedbytheLatter.”

8. The leased premises are defined in the Recitals to the Lease Deed as follows:

“a) The Lessor is the Sole, absolute, exclusive, and rightful owner of the entire built up property/ units bearing No. FF-01, FF-02, FF-02A, SF-01, SF-01B and SF-01C (Front Side Sky Bridge on Second Floor) in the building known as Gourmet Hub, Plot No. 1,