IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Arb. Case No.33 of 2010 Date of decision : October 21, 2010 Krishan Chand Chandel …Petitioner. Versus Market Committee Shimla …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. J.S. Bhogal, Senior Advocate, with M/s Y.P. Sood & T.S. Bhogal, Advocates. For the Respondent : Mr. S.C. Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) 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 rent is `1,000/- per month. Petitioner specifically alleges that he is a tenant/ lessee. Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… 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 `1,000/- per month, valuation of the subject matter would have been `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 …3… 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. October 21, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J