THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.560 of 2022 JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar)

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dt.26.02.2019 passed in I.A.No.1399 of 2018 in O.S.No.575 of 2016 on the file of XV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-XV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-II Additional Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Kukatpally (for short, ‘the Court below’).

2. The appellant herein is the petitioner in the underlying interlocutory application and defendant No.3 in the suit, vide O.S.No.575 of 2016. The 1^st respondent herein has filed the subject suit, vide O.S.No.575 of 2016 as plaintiff, for the relief of declaration, injunction and recovery of arrears of rent in respect of suit schedule property.

3. For ease of reference, the parties herein are referred to as per their position in the suit.

4. Briefly stated the case of the 3^rd defendant is that he had taken the suit schedule property admeasuring 34,000 square feet consisting of small + ground + four upper floors constructed on Plot No.7 admeasuring 1136 square yards situated in Sy.No.64, Sector II of HMDA, Techno Enclave, Madhapur Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, on lease, from the plaintiff and the 2^nd defendant in the suit under a deed of lease dt.08.08.2015 for a period of 15 years commencing from 01.10.2015; that the aforesaid deed of lease provides for resolving the disputes between the parties through mutual negotiations, failing which, such disputes are to be finally settled by arbitration in accordance with Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act,’); that for the aforesaid reason, the 3^rd defendant has filed the underlying interlocutory application before the Court below under Section 8 of the Act; and that the Court below, without considering the subject application in correct and proper perspective and without taking into account the existence of arbitration clause in the lease agreement, has erroneously dismissed the same.

5. In support of its contention, the 3^rd defendant has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Vinay Eknath Lad v/s. Chiu Mao Chen, (2019) 20 SCC 182

6. Per contra, on behalf of the plaintiff, it is contended that he is the owner of Plot of land admeasuring 1100 square yards having

purchased the same for valuable consideration; that the plaintiff had entered into a development agreement with defendant Nos.1 and 2 for constructing the suit schedule property i.e. commercial complex; that certain disputes have arisen in relation to the agreement entered into by the plaintiff with defendant Nos.1 and 2, in relation to sharing of the suit schedule property; that the aforesaid suit schedule property was agreed to be let out to the 3^rd defendant as a tenant under a deed of lease dt.08.08.2015; that inasmuch the said lease deed had not been registered, the same is not a validly executed deed; and that since, the 3^rd defendant is not paying rent in respect of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff, a declaration had been sought against that the 3^rd defendant being the tenant of the plaintiff, while seeking the main relief of permanent injunction against defendant Nos.1 and 2 restraining them from interfering with the suit schedule property and from executing any nature of documents in respect of the suit property.

7. On behalf of plaintiff, it is also contended that there is no dispute with the 3^rd defendant in relation to implementation or enforcement of deed of lease dt.08.08.2015 which is not valid as proper stamp duty is not paid and is not registered under Section 17 of the Registration Act, for it to claim to be referred to arbitration in terms of covenants of the lease, in particular clause 9 thereof, as per dispute resolution mechanism. It is also contended by the plaintiff that after defendant Nos.1 and 2 having failed in their effort to defeat the suit, by fi