PRAKASH GUPTA,J. - (1.) The instant Civil Misc. Appeal has been preferred against the impugned order dated 17.05.2019 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.4, Bharatpur whereby the said Court dismissed the application filed by the appellant-defendant under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter "the CPC") read with Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter "the Act of 1996").
(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the instant civil miscellaneous appeal are that the respondent-plaintiff instituted a civil suit under Order 37 of the CPC for recovering a sum of Rs.14,16,00,000. It was averred by the respondent-plaintiff in its plaint that the plaintiff had taken certain properties belonging to the appellant-defendant on lease and for this, a lease agreement was signed between the parties on 10.01.2011 and the same was registered before the Sub-Registrar, Bharatpur on 17.01.2011. However, after a lapse of a couple of years, some differences arose between the parties and it difficult to reconcile the differences, the lease deed/agreement was terminated vide letters dated 20.06.2014 and 31.12.2014.
(3.) As per the appellant-defendant since the terms contained in the letters dated 20.06.2014 and 31.12.2014 were not complied with, a suit was filed before the Rent Tribunal, Bharatpur. The appellant-defendant moved an application for issuance of recovery certificate before the Tribunal, after which a compromise was arrived at by the parties on 02.02.2016. The Rent Tribunal passed its decree on the basis of the compromise deed dated 03.02.2016. However, the appellant-defendant contended that the respondent-plaintiff did not comply with the decree and did not hand over vacant possession of the premises let out. The appellant-defendant also averred in his application that all the adjustments regarding the monetary transactions between the parties were done as per the terms and conditions of the lease deed dated 17.01.2011. Despite that, another suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff before the civil court. The appellant-defendant, relying on the terms and conditions of the lease deed dated 17.01.2011, more particularly clause 27 thereof, contended that since the said clause in the lease deed dated 17.01.2011 mandatorily required all the disputes arising between the parties to be adjudicated by an arbitrator as per the provisions of the Act of 1996, the suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed at the outset.;