- (1.) Learned Counsel for the respondent has entered appearance and thus, the caveat stands discharged. CM No. 1328/2012(Exemption) Allowed subject to just exceptions. FAO(OS) No. 29/2012
(2.) THE appellants appear to be going through a ritual of impugning the award dated 14.8.2011 before the learned single Judge and now before us completely ignoring the very premise for enacting the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). We may notice at the threshold that an arbitrator is a chosen judge by the parties and the court while examining objections under Section 34 of the said act must do so within the narrow window available and not as a court of appeal to re -appreciate the evidence. All that the has been urged in the present case by the Learned Counsel both before the learned single Judge and before us is and Endeavour to persuade us to re -appreciate the evidence. The dispute is in very narrow compass. The appellant let out their premised torn the respondent in pursuance of a lease deed dated 7.2.2008. The premised consisted of a shop bearing No. FF -03, First Floor, Commercial Complex,? The Metropolitan? At Commercial Plot No. A -2, Saket Palce, Saket, New Delhi -110017 (for short" the premises") at a monthly rent of 4,31,659.00 for a period of nine (9) Years, The Possession was handed over to the respondent on 1.2.2008, An interest free security equivalent to six (6) Month" Rent was paid by the respondent amounting to 25,89,954.00 a part from the maintenance security deposit of 1.00 lakh. It is not dispute that the respondent had the right to terminate the lease during this period of nine (9) and it is pursuance of such right that he lease was terminated w.e.f. 16.1.2009 as per a notice dated 16.10.2008 of the respondent. All maintenance charges levied by the Mall Management up to the dated of vacation were to be settled by the tenant and a NO Due Certificate obtained while handing over the shop for the appellants to hand over the security amount to the respondent.
(3.) THE controversy arose inter se the parties as according to the respondent the leased premises were restored to the appellant in the original condition on 15.1.2009 after clearing all dues towards maintenance charges to the Mall Management while on the other hand the appellants plead failure to hand over vacant and physical possession of the premises in question. As per the appellant the physical possession was handed over only when the keys of the premises were handed over during the pendency of the petition under Section 9 of the said Act by the appellants while the application filed by respondent under Section 11(6) of the said Act was also under consideration, In fact, the appellants had earlier filed a civil suit before the learned Additional District Judge in which an application was field by respondent under Section 8 of the said Act.;