Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J. - (1.) The dispute relates to running of a Bar at Udayachal Tourist Lodge, Salt Lake, belonging to West Bengal Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., the respondent no. 1 above named. The Corporation granted a lease to the appellant through an indenture dated February 22, 1993 appearing at pages 94 104 of the paper book. By the said agreement 1500 sq.ft. area along with kitchen, pantry, bar-storage and toilet facility at Udayachal Tourist Lodge was given to the appellant on the terms and conditions stipulated therein.
(2.) It further appears that for running of the Bar the appellant wanted an office space and approached the Corporation vide letter dated November 11, 1994. The Corporation considered their prayer vide letter dated April 28, 1995 appearing at page 105 of the paper book and granted tenancy in respect of Room Nos. 9 and 10 at the first floor at the monthly rent of Rs. 2500/- for being used as Bar Office. The tenancy was confirmed by the Corporation through letter dated May 16, 1995 appearing at page 106 of the paper book. Mr. B.K. Bachowat, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant, contends that the Bar Office was given to them vide letter dated April 28, 1995 and May 16, 1995 for augmentation of the business of Bar covered under the agreement dated November 22, 1993. Hence, the Bar Office should not be considered as a separate entity. In support of his contention Mr. Bachowat further refers to the letter dated February 09, 2009 appearing at page 117(a) of the paper book where Corporation offered renewal at the rate of Rs.45/-per sq. ft. in respect of Bar and Rs. 16/- per sq. ft. for Bar Office. This offer was a composite offer as appears from the letter dated February 09, 2009.
(3.) Disputing the contention of Mr. Bachowat, Mr. Jiban Ratan Chatterjee, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondents, contends that on a plan reading of the agreement it would appear that the lease agreement containing an arbitration clause relates to 1500 sq. ft. area to be used as Bar. The Bar Office was given by a separate letter as referred to above and was not made a part of the agreement which could come within the mischief of the arbitration clause. With regard to the offer made by the Corporation appearing at page 117(a) Mr. Chatterjee contends that said offer was conditional upon the final approval of the Board of Directors of the Corporation. The Corporation vide letter dated March 27, 2009 appearing at page 118 of the paper book gave modified offer only in respect of Bar. The issue of Bar Office was consciously excluded as would appear from the said letter dated March 27, 2009.;