MOHAMMAD RAFIQ,J. - (1.) This application under Sections 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been filed on 11.07.2014 by Om Prakash Sharma, who has been substituted by his legal representatives owing to his death on 27.12.2014 by (i) his wife Smt. Krishna Sharma, (ii) his son Sanjay Sharma, (iii) his daughter Mrs. Sanyukta Gautam and (iv) his another daughter Mrs. Sangeeta Sharma.
(2.) Applicant in the application prayed for appointment of an independent Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute and differences between the applicants and non-applicants in respect of agreement dated 29.3.2007 executed between them.
(3.) Applicant is the sole Proprietor/Owner of Cinema Hall and his property is known as "Polo victory Cinema". After thorough negotiation between parties, a License Deed with regard to part of the premises of the Polo victory Cinema was executed between applicant and respondent no. 2-M/s. Nirulas Corner House Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Nirulas/IInd Party-Respondent No. 2 to this petition) on 29th March, 2007. As per aforesaid License Deed, Applicant agreed to permit IInd Party-Respondent No. 2 to run Restaurant, Bar, Pastry Shop, Snack Bar etc. on the ground floor portion ad measuring 2200sq. feet of carpet area (super buildup area of 2750sq. feet) as mentioned in License Deed. As per clause 2 of the aforesaid License Deed dated 29th March, 2007, the deed was effective for a period of 15 years from the date of starting of commercial operation with a right of renewal for further period of 15 years as per terms and conditions of the License Deed. There was a clause of lock-in period of 2 years during which License could not be terminated. Clause 38 provided that IInd Party-Respondent No. 2 was having a right to terminate the License after lock-in period of 2 years by giving prior written notice of 3 months to applicant. As per clause 6 of the aforesaid License Deed, License fee was required to be paid to applicant with a minimum rate as mentioned in the License Deed. However, it was stipulated in the License Deed that the Licensee was liable to pay 9% of the net sales of items from Licensed premises, if the said amount exceed the License fee mentioned in the License Deed. For the purpose of calculation of the actual Licensee fee payable as per License Deed, respondents were liable to produce/show the record of actual net sales, so that the payable License fee could be calculated. It is alleged that both the respondents have not produced the actual record of sales so as to conceal the same just to avoid payment of higher License fee payable as per the License Deed. Besides License fee, Licensee were bound to pay maintenance charges as per clause 33 and other charges mentioned in the deed.;