Delhi High Court Chemical Sales Agencies vs Smt. Naraini Newar on 17 September, 2004 Equivalent citations: AIR2005DELHI76, 2005(1)ARBLR193(DELHI), 114(2004)DLT272, 2004(77)DRJ224, AIR 2005 DELHI 76, (2005) 1 ARBILR 193, (2004) 77 DRJ 224, (2004) 114 DLT 272 JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. 1. In both the writ petitions, the judgment and/or order passed by a learned Additional District Judge (ADJ), Delhi in Suit No.161/2002 entitled Smt Naraini Newar v. M/s Chemical Sales Agencies is impugned. Accordingly, this judgment shall dispose of both the writ petitions. 2. In essence, the dispute between the parties, i.e., Smt Naraini Newar on the one side and M/s Chemical Sales Agencies (hereinafter referred to as the 'CSA') on the other side, is a dispute with regard to their landladytenant relationship. Smt Naraini Newar claims to be the owner and landlady and CSA is the tenant in respect of the premises being the front portion of the Second Floor of Property No.5, Lancer's Road, B.D. Estate, Delhi110054 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Suit Premises'). The aforementioned suit was filed by Smt Naraini Newar against CSA for possession of the suit premises and recovery of Rs.2,04,300/ as arrears of rent (with interest). In the said proceedings before the learned ADJ, CSA filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') claiming that they had entered into the suit premises as a tenant of one Smt Savitri Devi (the predecessorininterest of Smt Naraini Newar) at a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/ by virtue of a document titled ''lease agreement'' purportedly made on 01.05.1992. According to CSA, the said purported lease agreement was binding on Smt Naraini Newar (being the successorininterest to Smt Savitri Devi) and that clause 14 thereof specifically provided for settlement of disputes by reference to arbitration. Accordingly, CSA, while moving the application under Section 8 of the said Act before the learned ADJ (the said suit was pending before him), prayed that an order be passed to refer the parties to arbitration with respect to the matters in dispute in the suit. 3. By the impugned judgment and/or order dated 17.12.2002, the learned ADJ held that the parties should be referred to arbitration in view of clause 14 of the purported lease agreement dated 01.05.1992. He further directed that the parties may raise their claims, defense, objections before the arbitrator and that the plaintiff (Smt. Naraini Newar) may even raise the objection with regard to the applicability of clause 14 of the lease agreement dated 01.05.1992. He directed that it was for the arbitration to decide the objection of the plaintiff (Smt. Naraini Newar) without being influenced by any observation made in the impugned judgment. However, while allowing the application of the defendant (CSA) and referring the parties to arbitration, the learned ADJ directed the plaintiff (Smt Naraini Newar) to appoint the arbitrator within 10 days. Both, Smt Naraini Newar and CSA are aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 17.12.2002. CSA is aggrieved, not by the reference to arbitration, because it is they who sought such a reference, but, on account of the fact that the learned ADJ directed the plaintiff (Smt Naraini Newar) to appoint the arbitrator when there was no such provision for appointment of an arbitrator by one party alone in the purported arbitration clause contained in the purported lease agreement dated 01.05.1992. Smt Naraini Newar, however, is aggrieved by the entire order itself inasmuch as it is her case that there is no arbitration agreement amongst the parties and the application under Section 8 of the said Act filed by CSA ought to have been dismissed and the suit ought to have been proceeded with. 4. This marks out the entire scope of the present writ petition. Before examining the legal issues, it would be appropriate for me to put aside certain factual matters. Initially, the suit premises belonged to one Smt Savitri Devi. CSA through its partner (Shri Yogesh Kumar Aggarwal) was inducted as a tenant prior to 1994 at a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/. The said Smt Savitri Devi sold the suit premises to one Sh Kailash Newar by means of a registered sale deed dated 25.04.1994. The said Shri Kailash Newar is the brotherinlaw of Smt Naraini Newar. CSA attorney its tenancy in favor of the said Shri Kailash Newar and started paying him rent. The rent was enhanced to Rs.2,500/ per month and thereafter to Rs.5,000/ per month although, it is the case of the tenantCSA that the rent is only Rs.3,000/ per month and that the additional sum of Rs.2,000/ represents electricity charges, etc.. This has been stated by CSA to show that the suit would not be maintainable as the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 would be applicable. Thereafter, on 11.09.2001, Shri Kailash Newar gifted the s