THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.64 OF 2011 Date:01st December, 2011 Between: Sunil Saraogi, S/o.late Satyanarayana Saraogi - - - Applicant. And Sri Indersena Reddy, S/o.Laxma Reddy. - - - Respondent. This Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.64 OF 2011 ORDER: This Arbitration Application has been taken out by Sunil Saraogi under sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (for short, ‘the Act’) seeking appointment of an arbitrator for resolution of disputes relatable to lease deed, dated 01.09.2005. 2. The applicant along with others entered into a partnership business under the name and style of ‘Explo Pack’ for manufacturing, processing, distributing, selling, buying, importing, exporting and also dealing all kinds of packing products and other materials. The respondent is the owner of one acre of land situated in Survey No.63 of Nagaram Village, Bandlaguda, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, along with buildings therein. The applicant took the land along with the buildings therein on a monthly rent of Rs.20,000/-. He deposited Rs.60,000/- as security deposit. He started the SSI Unit ‘M/s. Explo Pack’ in the leased land. He paid the rentals in addition to the security deposit of Rs.60,000/-. The lease period came to an end on 31.08.2010. As per Clause 21 of the lease deed, the period of lease stands renewed for a further period of ﬁve years. The applicant approached the respondent in the month of September, 2010 with a request to renew the lease for a further period of ﬁve years as per the terms of the lease deed. The respondent agreed to abide by the Clause 21 of the lease deed and thereafter, the applicant continued to pay the rentals at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per month. The respondent is avoiding to execute fresh lease deed on some pretext or the other. The applicant made several developments to the premises taken on lease by borrowing huge amounts. Disputes between the parties have been cropped up relatable to the lease deed, dated 01.09.2005. As per Clause 17 of the lease deed, disputes are required to be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration. The applicant invoked the arbitration clause in the lease deed and nominated Sri T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate, as arbitrator and requested the respondent to give his consent for the same. The respondent refused to give his consent for the name proposed by the applicant and instead proposed the name of Sri B. Ravindra Reddy, Advocate, as arbitrator. There being no unanimity with regards to the name of arbitrator, the applicant approached this Court invoking jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act. For completion of narration of facts, it may be stated that the applicant ﬁled O.P. No.77 of 2011 on the ﬁle of the Special Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum- Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, under Section 9 of the Act seeking interim injunction against the respondent. The learned Additional District Judge granted an order of status quo on 07.02.2011. 3. Notice came to be issued to the respondent on 29.07.2011. The respondent entered appearance through a counsel and filed counter affidavit. 4. Though various contentions have been raised in the counter aﬃdavit, it is suﬃce to refer relevant portion of Para 9 of the counter affidavit, which reads as hereunder: “It is submitted that the Respondent had issued a reply dated 10.02.2011 to the notice issued by the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to vacate the premises and hand over the premises to the respondent in good condition within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The respondent invoked Clause 17 of the lease deed and had nominated Mr. K. Ravindra Reddy, Advocate for commencement of arbitration proceedings as a sole arbitrator. The respondent did not accept Mr. T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, who was nominated by the petitioner as a sole arbitrator.” 5. Reply affidavit has been filed by the applicant. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the applicant and learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondent. 7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the respondent is not the absolute owner of the leased premises and the daughter of the respondent is the owner and without the daughter of the respondent being a party to the proceedings, there cannot be any eﬀective adjudication in the Arbitration Application. A further submission has been made that extension of lease, as sought for by the applicant, cannot be granted as the respondent is not the owner of the premises. 8. I have gone through the lease deed, dated 01-09- 2005. It is stated in the lease deed that the respondent is the absolute owner of the industrial shed situated at Nagaram village in Survey No.63, near Bandlaguda, Keesara Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Andhra Pradesh, having full and unﬁltered rights to let out the premises thereof on such terms and conditions as he may thinks ﬁt. The registered sale deed ﬁled along with the counter is dated 26-04-2006. It can be said that without any contradiction the sale deed is subsequent to the lease deed, dated 01-09-2005. The respondent having made a statement in an unequivocal term that he is the absolute owner of the leased premises, he cannot be permitted to contend that he is not the owner of the leased premises at this distance of time. The notices exchanged between the parties indicate that dispute between them is required to be resolved by way of arbitration. Indeed, the applicant proposed Sri T.V.S. Prabhakara Rao, Advocate, as sole arbitrator, whereas the respondent proposed Sri B. Ravindra Reddy, Advocate, as sole Arbitrator. There being no unanimity with regard to the name of the Arbitrator, the applicant has moved the instant application. 9. In the given circumstances, I ﬁnd that the applicant has made out a valid ground for appointment of an Arbitrator for resolving the disputes between him and the respondent relatable to the lease deed, dated 01-09-2005. Accordingly, the Arbitration Application is allowed appointing Sri Justice Vaman Rao, a Retired High Court Judge, as sole arbitrator. He is at liberty to ﬁx his own fees. No costs. _________________​_______ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dated:01-12-2011. 77 Dsh/Cs. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY ARBITRATION APPLICATION No.64 OF 2011 December, 01, 2011 DSH/CS