Shiv Kumar Sharma, J. - (1.) IN this application under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short '1996 Act') the applicant seeks to appoint sole arbitrator.
(2.) THE applicant, a registered company, engaged in business of operating Departmental/Supermarket stores. The respondent company owned a complex in the name of Central Point having basement, ground floor and four floors thereon at Plot No. A -34, Prabhu Marg, Tilak Nagar Jaipur. A lease deed was executed between applicant and respondent company on November 3, 2001 regarding built up area 9565.61 sq.ft. in ground floor along with 10 Air conditioned units and one DG set installed in the said premises. Due to business exigencies the applicant expressed its desire to surrender lease in respect of premises situated at first floor and to retain lease of premises at Ground floor and to revise lease rent w.e.f. October 1, 2002, the respondent lessor agreed and executed fresh lease deed on October 1, 2002. Big Shoppers Pvt. Ltd. Vide agreement dated July 5, 2005 transferred to Big Shoppers supermarket Pvt. Ltd. as growing concern all its business along with all rights available to it. Thus Big Shoppers Supermarket Pvt. Ltd. stepped in the shoes of Lessee. On account surrendering lease in respect of premises of first floor, the rent was revised w.e.f. October 1, 2002. The applicant lessee agreed to pay rent @ Rs. 80,000/ - per month. The lease was for a period of 18 years w.e.f. October 1, 2002. It was unregistered lease. On March 1, 2006 fresh lease deed was executed, according to which the lease was for a further period of 18 years w.e.f. March 1, 2006. After surrendering some portion, the area of demised premises will be 2650 sq.ft. only instead of 4180.55 sq.ft. and the rent will be Rs. 40,000/ - per month. The applicant continuously insisting for getting the deed registered, but the respondent did not pay any heed, however the applicant is ready and willing to perform his duty. The applicant received a notice dated June 19, 2007 from respondent for terminating the tenancy and to hand over the possession. The applicant sent reply to the notice on June 26, 2007, the receipt of which stands acknowledged in rejoinder dated July 3, 2007. Through reply the applicant asked the respondent to get resolve the disputes. The parties have also chosen the forum of arbitration according to Clause 24 of the lease deed. Accordingly the applicant suggested names of four retired Judges for appointment as Sole Arbitrator. Following disputes are required to be referred to Sole Arbitrator: a) Whether the applicant is entitled to the specific performance of the contract viz. for asking the respondent to submit the lease ded for registration and get it registered? b) In case decree for specific performance is granted, what is the effect of the decree for specific performance on the notice dated June 19, 2007 served by the lesser upon the Lessee? c) Whether notice of terminating tenancy is valid? d) Whether the lessor is entitled to a decree for eviction as per the provisions of the Rajasthan Rent control Act, 2001? Therefore the applicant company preferred the instant application for appointment of Sole Arbitrator. The respondent company filed reply to the application raising preliminary objection thus: (i) The applicant has not filed original arbitration agreement along with the application, therefore, in view of Section 8 of 1996 Act the application is not maintainable. (ii) The dispute between the parties is regarding termination of tenancy and eviction of tenant applicant. The dispute can only be decided by Rent Tribunal under the provisions of Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 (for short 'Rent Act') and such matter cannot be rendered for arbitration. As per Section 18 of Rent Act no Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the matter between landlord and tenant. As per Section 9 of Rent Act for the eviction of tenant the satisfaction of Rent Tribunal is necessary and it does not require satisfaction of any other court or of an arbitrator. Section 9 further provides that it will have overriding effect over all other laws and contracts including arbitration agreement. Section 29 of Rent Act has overriding effect over other laws. Section 2(3) of 1996 Act provides that provisions of 1996 Act cannot effect any other law for the time being in force by virtues of which certain disputes cannot be submitted for arbitration. (iii) The respondent landlord has already filed a suit for eviction bearing case No. 365/2008 against the applicant tenant before the Rent Tribunal Jaipur. Notice has also been issued to tenant by the Rent Tribunal, which is appropriate forum. In parawise reply to the application the respondent contended that no resolution has been filed along with the application to prove authority of Mr. Rajendra Bardia to file present application. Execution of lease deed on March 1, 2006 was admitted, but since the lease deed is unregistered the same is not admissible in evidence, and therefore the provisions of lease deed cannot be read. The respondent sent the notice on June 19, 2007, thereby terminated the tenancy from November 31, 2007. After receipt of the notice, the applicant asked for registration of lease deed, vide reply to notice dated June 26, 2007. Since the lease deed already stood terminated there was no question of getting the lease deed registered. According to Section 23 of Registration Act, 1908 no document can be accepted for registration unless presented within four months from the date of its execution. The limitation of registration of lease deed has already expired.
(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions.;