FAO No.356/08

Page 1 of 22

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

FAO No. 356 of 2008

Date of Decision : March 6, 2009

M/s Roshin Lal Gupta & Sons Pvt. Ltd.

…….Appellant

Through Mr. R.K.Singh & Ms. Deepa Rai,

Advocates

Versus

Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation & Anr.

…….Respondent.

Through None.

CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the

judgment? Yes.

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes.

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Yes

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

1.

The plaintiff/appellant – Roshin Lal Gupta & Sons Pvt.

Ltd. owns a shop-cum-office at the ground floor, Tribhuvan

Complex, Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road, New Delhi. It let out the

said premises to the respondents – Delhi Tourism & Transportation

Development Corporation (DTDC) on 2^nd March, 2005 for two years.

2009:DHC:786

FAO No.356/08

Page 2 of 22

The appellant claims that the monthly rent agreed between the

parties was fixed @ 12.5% of the gross profit arising from the sales

carried out by the respondents from the said premises. The

appellant also contends that at the time when the premises were let

out, the respondents assured them that the monthly rent would

work out to more than Rs. 30,000/- per month. The terms and

conditions of the contract between the parties were reduced to

writing by a „Deed of Agreement‟ executed on 1^st June, 2005

between the parties. That agreement also contained the following

arbitration clause:-

“That if any dispute or difference arises between

the parties here or their representatives or in

regard to any other matter under these presents

and save as to any matter the decision thereof is

hereinbefore expressly provided for, the same shall

be referred to Sole-Arbitrator of the MD&CE, Delhi

Tourism & Tpt. Dev. Corporation Limited and if he

is unable or unwilling to act to the sole Arbitration

of some other persons appointed by him, it will be

no objection to any such appointment that the

person appointed is/was an employee of the

Corporation or that he has to deal with the

matters to which the contract relates and that in

the course of his duties as such employees of the

Corporation, he has expressed views on all or any

of the matter in dispute or difference.

The reference to the Arbitration shall be deemed to

be a submission within the meaning of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or any

statutory modification or re-enactment thereof,

and the rules made there under for the time being

in force shall apply to such reference and this

deed shall be deemed to be submission to such

Arbitration. The decision of such arbitrator shall

be final and binding upon both the parties.”

[ emphasis added ]

2009:DHC:786

FAO No.356/08

Page 3 of 22

2.

The appellant contends that despite repeated requests,

the respondents failed to pay the monthly dues as fixed under the

aforesaid agreement between the parties to them. It is also alleged

that the respondents failed to render proper accounts of the total

monthly sales turnover which would enable the appellants to also

determine the amount due to them every month in terms of the

Agreement. Consequently, on 2^nd July, 2005, the appellants

terminated the agreement and called upon the respondents to

vacate the premises by 2^nd August, 2005. Since the respondents

failed to do so, another letter was written by the appellant putting

the respondents on notice that the monthly rent of the premises is

about Rs. 50,000-60,000/- per month and that in case the

premises are not handed over by Ist December, 2006, the appellant

would be constrained to seek their eviction as well as damages for

the illegal use and occupation of the same. Other communications

to the same effect are also s