CAV ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner has sought for an appointment of Sole Arbitrator as per clause 7.7 of the Lease Deed dated 22^nd June, 2018 (Annexure-A) for resolution of the dispute/differences between the parties.

2. The facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in rendering services in the area of property management. The respondent floated a tender dated 13^th February, 2017 to offer the lease of the property in question and pursuant to the same, the petitioner- Company had participated in the bid and declared as successful bidder. Thereafter, the parties have entered into an agreement as per lease deed dated 22^nd June, 2018 (Annexure-A) and the schedule property was leased by the respondent to the petitioner for an initial period of 4 years 11 months. The lease of the schedule property was to be extended as per clause 2.3 of the Lease Deed dated 22^nd June, 2018 (Annexure-A). It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner-Company exercised its option to renew the lease, for which, the respondent replied that the rent is on the lower side for commercial space resulting in dispute between the parties. It is stated in the petition that the petitioner-Company continues to be in possession of the schedule property as a Lessee till date and is making rent in terms of the lease deed. In the meanwhile, parties have presented before the pre-institution mediation filed by the respondent before the District Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru (Annexure-G). The said proceedings failed on account of the fact that the parties could not arrive at consensus. In the meanwhile, the petitioner invoked arbitration clause by addressing notice dated 03^rd April, 2025 (Annexure-K) and nominated Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajit J. Gunjal (Former Judge of this Court) as Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute. In response to the same, the respondent by its reply dated 20^th May, 2025 (Annexure-P) stated that the issue is not arbitrable and the leased premises comes within the purview of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'PP-Act') and as such, rejected the claim made by the petitioner for appointment of an Arbitrator. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court in the present petition, seeking appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

3. Heard Sri. R.V.S. Naik , learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri. Nitin Prasad, appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Arvind Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor General of India on behalf of Ms. Varsha Hittinhalli, appearing for the respondent.

4. Sri. R.V.S. Naik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner refers to Clause 7.7 of the Lease Deed dated 22^nd June, 2018 (Annexure-A) and clause 2.3 of the said lease deed and contended that the petitioner is entitled for extension of lease period and same was resorted to after first extension of time granted by the respondent. It is the submission of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that, in view of the dispute with regard to settlement of rent for further extension of time, the petitioner continues to be in possession of the schedule property.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that, in view of the arbitration clause in the Lease Deed dated 22^nd June, 2018 (Annexure-A), the provisions under the PP-Act are not applicable to the case on hand and in this regard, he refers to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION AND ANOTHER vs. SIDHARTHA TILES & SANITARY PVT. LTD. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2983.

6. Nextly, by referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DATAR SWITCHGEARS LTD. vs. TATA FINANCE LTD. AND ANOTHER reported in (2008) 8 SCC 151, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued t