O R D E R

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator, for adjudication of disputes between the parties, arising out of the Lease Deed dated 02nd July, 2018 (“Lease Deed”).

2. As per the facts on record, the parties executed the said Lease Deed, whereby, the Ground Floor and Basement of the property bearing No. 463, Patparganj Industrial Area, New Delhi – 110092 was leased out to the respondent, for the purpose of operating a workshop/warehouse, for a period of five (5) years commencing from 01st August, 2018.

3. As per the case of the petitioner, disputes have arisen between the parties owing to the respondent’s continued default in adhering to the agreed rental structure under the Lease Deed and the unilateral termination of the same, which was in complete violation of the contractual requirement of prior notice under the Lease Deed. The respondent has thereafter also vacated the premises on 15th June, 2023, i.e., before the expiry of the agreed term under the Lease Deed.

4. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the non-payment of rent arrears and damages caused to the leased premises, instituted two commercial suits against the respondent herein, namely CS(COMM) No. 573/2024 for recovery of Rs. 4,24,103/- (Rupees Four Lacs Twenty-Four Thousand One Hundred Three Only) towards damages, and CS(COMM) No. 574/2024 for recovery of Rs. 39,48,504/- (Rupees Thirty-Nine Lacs Forty-Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Four Only) towards unpaid rent and allied dues.

5. In the said proceedings, the respondent herein filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, seeking reference of the disputes to arbitration and vide order dated 02nd June, 2025, the District Judge, Commercial Court, Shahdara, referred the parties to arbitration.

6. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner invoked the arbitration clause of the Lease Deed vide Notice dated 18th August, 2025, issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act, which was duly served upon the respondent.

7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the said arbitration clause in the Lease Deed, i.e., Clause 11(E), which reads as under:

“xxx xxx xxx

E. Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this LEASE DEED, or any breach or alleged breach thereof, shall be finally settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The LESSEE shall be entitled to appoint one arbitrator and LESSOR shall be entitled to appoint one arbitrator and that those two arbitrators shall nominate a third arbitrator. The arbitration proceedings shall be held in Chennai. The Courts in Delhi shall alone have jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising out of this LEASE DEED.

xxx xxx xxx”

8. Perusal of the aforesaid arbitration clause clearly shows that there is a valid Arbitration Agreement between the parties, whereby, the parties have agreed that the disputes between them shall be settled by way of arbitration, in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act.

9. This Court further takes note that though the arbitration clause stipulates that Courts in Delhi shall alone have jurisdiction, the venue of the arbitration proceedings has been provided as Chennai. Furthermore, in terms of the arbitration clause, the arbitration has to be conducted by an Arbitral Tribunal, consisting of three Arbitrators.

10. However, learned counsels appearing for both the parties give consent that considering that the claim raised by the petitioner is approximately to the tune of Rs. 29,49,228/- (Rupees Twenty-Nine Lacs Forty-Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Twenty-Eight Only), instead of an Arbitral Tribunal comprising of three members, only one person may be appointed as a Sole Arbitrator.

11. Further, this Court notes the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the respondent that she h