* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: August 12, 2009
Date of Order: August 31, 2009
+OMP 461/2009
% 31.08.2009
M/s Nilu Handicrafts ...Petitioner
Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajender
Aggarwal, Advocate
Versus
M/s Dolphin Mart Ltd. ...Respondent
Through: Nemo
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. This petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 has been made by the petitioner with a prayer that this Court should direct respondent to pay to the petitioner outstanding rent of Rs.1,23,000/- per month from 1st February 2009 till date and continue to pay the said amount till the possession is delivered to the petitioner.
2. The petition discloses that the petitioner had entered into a lease deed with the respondent in respect of a showroom No.GS-109, Ground Floor, DLF, Grand Mall, Mehrauli-Gurgaon Road, Haryana comprising of 1174 sq. feet reserving the rent of Rs.1,23,000/- per month with lock-in-period of three years commencing from 9th August 2006 to 8th August, 2009. The petitioner received a letter from respondent wherein respondent informed the petitioner OMP 461/2009 Nilu Handicrafts v.M/s Dolphin Mart Ltd. Page 1 Of 2 that the running of showroom was not economical for it and the respondent was planning to handover the showroom to Dolphin International Limited to run an export office. Respondent wanted no objection from petitioner for this arrangement. Respondent vide another letter dated 6th December 2008 told the petitioner not to present the post-dated cheuqes issued by it on account of rentals. Since the petitioner did not issue no objection, respondent vide letter dated 5th May 2009 intimated to the petitioner that it had vacated the premises and asked the petitioner to take possession and the keys of the premises after refunding the security. Thereafter, the petitioner filed this petition under Section 9 with above prayer.
3. In my view, this petition under Section 9 is not maintainable. A petition under Section 9 cannot be filed to recover arrears of rent or to seek directions for respondent to continue to pay the rent. The intent and purpose of Section 9 is to preserve the subject matter of arbitration. The scope of Section 9 is not as extensive as various rules under Order 39 or and also does not include in its ambit Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC. The instant petition seeking directions for respondent to pay rent to the petitioner is not maintainable. The petition is hereby dismissed. The petitioner, however, would be at liberty to invoke the arbitration clause and ask the arbitrator to pass a suitable interim award.
August 31, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J. rd OMP 461/2009 Nilu Handicrafts v.M/s Dolphin Mart Ltd. Page 2 Of 2