IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Arb. Case No. 19 of 2010. Decided on: 27.10.2010. ___________________________________________________________ Shri Rohit Karol … Petitioner. Versus Market Committee Shimla & Kinnaur. … Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. S.C. Sharma, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). In the connected matters being Arbitration Case Nos. 32, 33 and 34 of 2010, decided on 21.10.2010, a copy of one of which (Arbitration Case No. 33 of 2010, titled Krishan Chand Chandel versus Market Committee, Shimla) has been brought on record at the instance of the petitioner, the following order was passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court: “Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioner, claiming himself to be tenant, in respect of a shop, owned by the respondent, has filed the present petition, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking an order, protecting his possession, pending adjudication of the dispute, which has arisen between the parties, by arbitration, in terms of Section 180 of the Himachal Pradesh Agriculture & Horticultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 2005. According to petitioner’s own averments, the rate of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 rent is Rs.1,000/- per month. Petitioner specifically alleges that he is a tenant/ lessee. 3. Petitioner is aggrieved by a notice of termination of lease, which has been termed as licence in the notice, served upon the petitioner by the respondent. That means, if the petitioner were to file a suit, seeking relief against the notice served upon him by the respondent, the valuation of the subject matter would have to be done, in accordance with the provisions of Section 7(v)(e) & (xi)(e) of the H.P. Court Fees Act, 1968. Alleged rent being Rs. 1,000/- per month, valuation of the subject matter would have been Rs.12,000/-. If that is so, the Court competent to entertain and try the suit would have been that of the District Judge at Shimla, that Court being the Principal Civil Court. 4. Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, provides that that Court can be approached for protection of rights, pending adjudication by arbitration, which would have had the jurisdiction but for an agreement for settlement of disputes between the parties by arbitration. Therefore, the Court, which has the jurisdiction to entertain the present petition is that of District Judge, Shimla and not this Court. Consequently, the petition is ordered to be returned to the petitioner. Petition shall be returned by 22nd October, 2010, positively, alongwith a copy of this order. 5. It is ordered that for one week, to be computed from today, or till the petition is presented before the District Judge, whichever is earlier, petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the shop, in question, and after the presentation of the petition before the District Judge, it will be the Court of District Judge, which shall decide whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Petition stands disposed of.” 3 2. Admittedly, the case in hand shall also be governed by the above order dated 21.10.210 passed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid matter with the slight deviation that whereas in that order a direction has been issued to return the records to the learned counsel for the petitioner within two days and that the interim order will operate thereafter upto one week, in the present case the records shall be returned to the learned counsel for the petitioner within a week from today and thereafter, interim order will be operative for a further period of two weeks. 3. The case is disposed of in the above terms. Copy ‘Dasti’. (V.K.Sharma) Judge. October 27, 2010. (cr)