M/S Nilu Handicrafts vs M/S Dolphin Mart Ltd.
2009 Latest Caselaw 3466 Del

*          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