HARISH TANDON, J. - (1.) THIS revisional application is directed against an order no. 14 dated 1. 9.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), 2nd Court, Barasat in Title suit No. 164 of 2008 by which an application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 was rejected.
(2.) BEFORE dealing with the points emerges for consideration in this revisional application the short facts are required to be narrated. By a sub-lease deed dated 26th September 2003 the opposite party demised unto the petitioner a super built-up area of 2990 sq. ft. on the ground floor along with two exclusive car parking places in respect of the building constructed by the opposite party on the payment of the lease rent as provided therein for initial period of 3 years from the date of the final possession with an option for renewal for two successive terms of the same period on enhancement of the rent by 15 % at the last rent paid. The said deed contains an arbitration clause. The suit for eviction being Title Suit No. 164 of 2008 is instituted by the opposite party against the petitioner after terminating the said agreement upon issuance of a notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. In the plaint the opposite party pleaded various misdeeds of the petitioner which led to the issuance of notice under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The petitioner took out an application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (said Act) for referring the dispute to the Arbitral Tribunal as the parties in the said deed consented for determination of the disputes through a private Fora and not by judicial authority.
(3.) IN the said application it is contended that an option for renewal was exercised before the expiration of the initial term which was agreed by the opposite party by accepting the enhanced rent for four months but subsequently refused to accept the rent and illegally and wrongfully stopped the electricity and supply of water to the petitioner. It is further stated that an application under section 9 of the said Act which was registered as Misc. Case no. 49 of 2007 was filed before the District Court at Barasat and an order of status quo was passed in the said proceeding on 29th March 2007. Subsequently the said application was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Barasat and the said order is assailed in appeal before this court where an order of status quo is passed till the disposal of the appeal. It is alleged that the letter to nominate the arbitrator was served upon the opposite party and on its failure to nominate and/or appoint the arbitrator within the time stipulated therein, sole arbitrator is appointed who entered in the reference and already held several sittings.;