FAO NO.2298 OF 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. FAO NO.2298 OF 2009(O&M) DECIDED ON- 2.12.2010 M/s. Perfexa Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ……APPELLANT Versus Sunil Sharma ……RESPONDENT And FAO NO.2299 OF 2009(O&M) DECIDED ON 2.12.2010 M/s. Perfexa Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ……APPELLANT Versus Sunil Sharma and another ……RESPONDENTS Coram HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Ravinder Singh Sampla, Advocate for Mr. P.S.Mattewal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. N.C.Sahni, Advocate for respondent. **** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J(ORAL) This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing FAO No. 2298 of 2009 titled M/s. Perfexa Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sunil Sharma and FAO No. 2299 of 2009 titled M/s. Perfexa Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sunil Sharma and another. In both the cases, the appellant M/s. Perfexa Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ( hereinafter called as the 'company') is the lessee of the respondents. The tenancy agreement was terminated by the lessor who demanded arrears of FAO NO.2298 OF 2009 2 rent and possession. This led to a dispute between the parties which was ultimately referred to the Arbitrator. During the pendency of the Arbitration proceedings, an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996( hereinafter called as 'Act') was filed by the lessor for release of entire arrears of rent, which was allowed vide impugned order dated 14.3.2009 and the appellant was directed to furnish bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and security in the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- within one month for due performance of the decision to be given by the Arbitrator. Aggrieved against the said order, the present two appeals have been preferred in which at one point of time, learned counsel for the lessor had admitted that the matter has been compromised between the parties. Thereafter, at the instance of counsel for the appellants, these cases have been adjourned from time to time. Today also, there are adjournment slips filed on behalf of the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondent/lessor has placed on record copy of settlement / compromise agreement in both the cases and has submitted that lessor has given up the rent and in lieu thereof, possession has been taken over. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, no dispute survives between the parties which could be adjudicated by the Arbitrator. He further submits that in view thereof, these appeal, which have been filed against the interim order, have become infructuous. Proxy counsel for Sh.P.S.Mattewal, though has prayed for an adjournment but in view of the fact that the matter has been settled as submitted by learned counsel for the lessor/respondent who has placed on record the settlement/compromise agreements, I am inclined to accept his FAO NO.2298 OF 2009 3 statement and in view thereof, both the appeals are dismissed for having become infructuous. The appellant, however, is at liberty to get the appeal revived in case of any factual error committed by learned counsel for the respondent. 2.12.2010 ( RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) mamta JUDGE