Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

1. The present appeal arises under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the order dated 26.9.2022 passed by the learned District Judge, Bhubaneswar in ARBP No.02 of 2022. By the said order, the learned District Judge allowed the application filed by the respondent under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and granted interim protection in favour of the respondent. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned District Judge granting interim protection to the respondent and restraining the appellants from interfering with possession of the premises otherwise than in due process of law, the appellants have approached this Court by way of the present arbitration appeal.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The dispute between the parties essentially concerns possession and use of certain commercial premises comprising shop rooms and adjoining land situated along the Cuttack–Puri Road in Bhubaneswar. The appellants claim that the property originally belonged to Late Dev Durlav Dhal and Smt. Kusum Dhal, and after the demise of Dev Durlav Dhal the property continued to be managed by the surviving members of the family. According to the appellants, only three shop rooms forming part of the property had been let out to the respondent for commercial use on a monthly rental basis through an oral arrangement. The appellants maintain that the arrangement was limited in scope and duration and did not extend to any vacant land or additional structures situated in the property.

3. The respondent, however, asserts a different factual foundation.According to the respondent, the relationship between the parties was governed by a written tenancy agreement executed between the parties. The respondent claims that a tenancy agreement was executed on 10.2.2020 whereby the respondent was inducted as a tenant in respect of the schedule premises for the purpose of running its business. The agreement allegedly contained various terms governing the rights and obligations of the parties, including the amount of monthly rent payable by the respondent and the duration of the tenancy. It is further asserted that the tenancy was agreed to continue for a period extending up to 9.2.2027 and that the agreement also contains a clause providing for resolution of disputes through arbitration.

4. According to the respondent, disputes subsequently arose between the parties when the appellants allegedly attempted to obstruct the respondent from carrying on its business activities in the premises. The respondent contends that despite having been inducted as a tenant and despite regularly paying rent, the appellants began creating obstacles in the respondent’s use and enjoyment of the premises. It was further alleged that attempts were made to interfere with the respondent’s possession and to evict the respondent from the premises without following the procedure established by law. In these circumstances, the respondent approached the Court seeking interim protection.

5. In order to safeguard its possession and business operations, the respondent filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the learned District Judge, Bhubaneswar. The application was registered as ARBP No.02 of 2022. In the said petition, the respondent sought interim measures of protection pending initiation of arbitral proceedings. The principal relief sought by the respondent was a direction restraining the appellants from obstructing the respondent or its representatives from entering the schedule premises and from evicting the respondent by force or otherwise except in accordance with due process of law.

6. Upon receipt of notice of the Section 9 application, the present appellants entered appearance and contested the petition by filing their objection. In their objection, the appellants disputed the very existence and validity of the alleged tenancy agreement