IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA CMP No. 275/2019 BETWEEN :
M/s. Paradise Food Court Private Limited A private Limited Company Incorporated under the Provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 Having its Regd. Office at No. 1-7-186 to 193 Paradise Circle, S.D. Road Secunderabad Rep. by its Finance Manager and Authorized signatory Mr. B.K.V.S. Murthy. … PETITIONER (By Sri. Anantharam G.R., Adv.) AND :
Mrs. Shobha Raju Aged about 46 years D/o. Dr. Govinda Raju R/a. No. 66 Cunningham Road Cross Bengaluru – 560 052. … RESPONDENT (By Sri. DR. Prajwal K. Aradhya, Adv., for Sri. S. Kalyan Basavaraj, Adv.) ---
This CMP is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with a prayer to appoint a sole arbitrator from the panel of the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre of Karnataka, Khanija Bhavan (East Wing), 3rd floor, Race Course Road, Bangalore – 560 001 in terms of clause 19 of the lease deed dated 02.02.2017 vide Annexure – A and etc.
This CMP coming on for Admission this day, the Court passed the following;
O R D E R Petitioner has filed the present petition under the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in terms of Clause 19 of the registered lease deed dated 02.02.2017 entered into between the parties.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent is the owner of property bearing No. 744, 4th Block, 80 feet Road, Koramangala, Bengaluru, comprising of commercial building consisting basement, ground and first to third floors totally measuring about 15,200 square feet was demised on lease for a period of 20 years on mutually agreed terms between the parties. Accordingly registered lease deed came to be executed on 02.02.2017. The petitioner has paid totally a sum of Rs.80.00 lakhs refundable deposit to the respondent. Monthly rentals and other charges due on the premises were being paid by the petitioner regularly. Since the petitioner firm was unable to do well in the business at the said premises it decided to terminate the lease and by notice dated 29.12.2017 intimated the respondent that it is terminating the lease of the said premises by the end of 21.06.2018, i.e., by the end of lock-in-lock period of three years from 22.06.2015 and requested the respondent to refund the security deposit and take delivery of the vacant possession of the demised premises by the end of said notice period. The respondent through her legal representative took possession on 21.09.2018. Inspite of repeated requests made, the respondent has not refunded the amount. Therefore, the petitioner issued legal notice dated 12.06.2019 to the respondent in terms of clause 19 of the registered lease agreement. Said legal notice was not replied by the respondent. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court for the relief as stated supra.
3. Respondent has not filed objections to the main petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis and perused the records carefully.
5. Sri. Anantharam learned counsel for petitioner reiterating the averments made in the petition would contend that it is not in dispute that the petitioner became tenant under the respondent on 22.06.2015 and he could not continue his business. Therefore, petitioner issued legal notice for termination of lease after three years and possession was also delivered to the land lord on 21.09.2018. Inspite of repeated requests the agreed amount as per the terms of agreement was not refunded to the petitioner. The learned counsel further contended that there is no dispute with regard to lease deed, arbitration clause and delivery of vacant possession. Therefore, he sought to allow the civil miscellaneous petition.
6. Per contra, Sri. Prajwal K. Aaradhya, learned counsel for respondent landlord has not disputed the registered lease deed entered into between the parties dated 22.06.2015 and the respondent taking vacant possession on 21.09.2018 after expiry of three years. The learned counsel would further contend that there is a clause in the lease deed to set off the amount towards repair and damage of the building during the subsistence of the lease. Therefore, sought to dismiss the civil miscellaneous petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties it is not in dispute that the respondent is the owner of the property in question. It was leased to the petitioner on 22.06.2015. It is also not in dispute that after the expiry of 3 years in terms of the lease deed the petitioner has handed over the vacant possession of to the landlord on 21.09.2018. It is the specific case of the petitioner that in terms of the lease agreement landlord has to refund the security deposit of Rs.80.00 lakhs to the petitioner without interest. Inspite of repeated requests the same was not refunded. Therefore, the petitioner was forced to issue legal notice on 12.06.2019. Admittedly the respondent landlord has not replied. It is the contention of the respondent that there is a clause for adjustment of damages by the petitioner during the existence of lease. Damage, if any, by petitioner is a matter to be adjudicated before the learned arbitrator and This Court cannot decide the said dispute. Clause 19 of the lease agreement provides for arbitration and it reads as under:
19. Governing Laws:
Any dispute between the parties in respect of this Lease Deed or related to it including its existence and validity will be determined by Sole Arbitrator appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitration will be conducted in the city of Bangalore by the Sole arbitrator appointed by the parties or appointed in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Therefore, in view of the aforesaid admitted facts there is no impediment for this Court to appoint sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.
8. For the reasons stated above, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. Sri. A.V. Chandrashekar, former Judge of this Court is appointed as sole arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties in terms of clause 19 of the registered lease deed entered into between the parties in accordance with law.
9. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the learned arbitrator and to the Arbitration Centre. Bengaluru forthwith.
10. Office is directed to return the certified copy of the lease deed dated to the learned counsel for petitioner forthwith after following the due procedure in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE LRS.