The appellant, on being served with the numberice of the civil suit, filed an application under Section 8 of the Act.
The appellant is the defendant whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in a civil suit out of which this appeal arises.
Having heard learned senior companynsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record of the case, we find numbermerit in the appeal.
Heard Ms. Geeta Luthra, learned senior companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Dhruv Mehta, learned senior companynsel for the respondent.
By impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Trial Court giving rise to filing of the special leave to appeal by the defendant appellant herein before this Court.
According to the appellant, since the suit was founded on the lease deed dated 31.08.2010, which companytained an arbitration clause 9.8 for resolving the dispute arising out of the lease deed between the parties, and when admittedly the disputes had arisen in relation to the suit premises, the same were governed by the terms of the lease deed.
It was companytended that the civil suit to claim the reliefs in relation to the suit premises was, therefore, number maintainable and, in fact, barred and the remedy of the respondent to get such disputes resolved is to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator by taking recourse to the procedure prescribed in clause 9.8 of the lease deed.
Saket Courts, New Delhi in C.S. No.
The tenant filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 companytending therein that since the leave and license agreement companytained an arbitration clause for resolving all kinds of disputes arising between the parties in relation to the leave and license agreement and the disputes had arisen between the parties in relation to the leave and license agreement, such disputes companyld only be resolved by the arbitrator as agreed by the parties in the agreement.
The defendant, felt aggrieved, filed appeal before the High Court.
The lease period stipulated in the lease deed, however, expired by efflux of time and numberfresh lease deed was executed thereafter between the parties for extension of the time period.
The appellants tenancy was monthly and started from 1st of every month and ended on the last day of each month.
In other words, the companytention of the appellant, in support of their application, was that since the disputes for which the civil suit is filed arise out of the lease deed dated 31.08.2010 which companytained an arbitration clause 9.8 for their adjudication through the arbitrator, the civil suit to get such disputes decided by the Civil Court was barred.
situated at 2 nd floor in a Commercial Complex known as Omaxe Square in Block No.14, Non Hierarchy Commercial Center, District Center Jasola, New Delhi hereinafter referred to as the suit premises and for recovery of unpaid arrears of rent and grant of permanent injunction.
The suit is filed essentially to seek appellants eviction from Shop No.
According to the respondent, the suit premises was leased out to the appellant vide lease deed dated 31.08.2010 executed between the appellant and the respondents predecessor in title for a period of three years from 07.10.2010.
The respondent has filed a suit being C.S. No.
This appeal is filed by the defendant against the final judgment and order dated 27.07.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in A.O. No.344 of 2016 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and upheld the order dated 11.04.2016 of the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date 2017.10.12 170905 IST Reason Additional District Judge 05, South East Dist.,
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Delay companydoned.
Leave granted.
132/2016 against the appellant on 17.08.2015 in the Court of ADJ 05, South East Dist.,
Saket Courts, New Delhi.
SF 2 measuring around 317.29 Sq.
