* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 05.02.2026 + FAO 33/2026, CM APPL. 7962/2026 & CM APPL. 7963/2026 AMIT GUPTA ......Appellant Through: Mr. B.L. Gupta, Advocate versus KIRAN DEVI & ANR. ......Respondent Through: Mr. Rohit Kumar Singh, Mr. Akash Kumar and Mr. Mahender Rathour, Advocates CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI JUDGMENT (ORAL)

CM APPL. 7963/2026 (exemption)

1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. The application is disposed of.

FAO 33/2026 & CM APPL. 7962/2026

1. The present appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “Arbitration Act”), assailing the order dated 24.12.2025 passed by the learned DJ-10, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, as well as the arbitral award dated 25.08.2025 and the interim award dated 01.01.2025 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in Case Reference No.

DIAC/9178/2024.

2. Vide the aforesaid order, the petition filed by appellant under section 34 of Arbitration Act came to be dismissed on 24.12.2025, whereby the appellant had sought setting aside of the arbitral award dated 25.08.2025 as well as the interim arbitral order dated 01.01.2025. By the said order, the Court upheld the validity of the arbitral proceedings and the awards, holding that none of the grounds urged by the Appellant satisfied the limited and restrictive parameters prescribed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act for interference with an arbitral award.

3. Briefly put, the facts of the present case, necessary for adjudication of the present appeal, as culled out from the records, are that he appellant took on rent Flat No. CGL-162, Tower L, DLF Capital Greens-II, Shivaji Marg, Moti Nagar, New Delhi from the respondent-landlord vide an unregistered lease agreement dated 19.10.2020 for a period of eleven months commencing from 01.11.2020 to 30.09.2021 at a monthly rent of Rs.39,000/-, upon deposit of a security amount of Rs.78,000/-. Upon expiry of the said lease, the parties executed another unregistered lease agreement dated 30.10.2021 for a further period of eleven months, i.e., from 01.10.2021 to 31.08.2022, at an enhanced monthly rent of Rs.41,000/-. After the expiry of the second lease, the tenancy was not extended by mutual consent. Thereafter, the respondent issued a legal notice dated 24.04.2023 alleging non-payment of rent for the months of February to March 2023 and subsequently invoked arbitration by filing a petition on 18.08.2023. During the pendency of the arbitral proceedings, an interim order dated 01.01.2025 was passed directing the appellant to pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs.45,000/-. Ultimately, the arbitral proceedings culminated in a final award dated 25.08.2025 passed in favour of the respondent, inter alia directing the appellant to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the suit property.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, while assailing the impugned order, submits that the learned District Judge has failed to appreciate that the rent agreement had already expired and, consequently, the disputes arising therefrom were no longer amenable to arbitration. It is further contended that the arbitral award was rendered beyond the statutory time limit prescribed under Section 29A of the Act. Lastly, it is urged that the arbitral award is insufficiently stamped and, therefore, liable to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, supports the impugned order, and contends that the pleadings before the learned Arbitrator were completed in the month of November, 2024, and the amended pleadings being filed in the month of March, 2025, counting the period from any date – the arbitral award passed on 25.08.2025 well within the statutory period of one year. Insofar as sufficiency of stamp is concerned, learned counsel submits that the deficient stamp already stands paid before the executing Court.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the