Mr Sandeep Khanna & Ors. vs Karvy Stock Broking Ltd.
2021 Latest Caselaw 3476 Del

$~3
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                            Date of decision: 15.12.2021

+     ARB.P. 986/2021
      MR SANDEEP KHANNA & ORS.                           ..... Petitioners
                          Through      Mr.Sandeep Chandna, Adv.

                          versus

      M/S KARVY STOCK BROKING LTD.                       ..... Respondent
                   Through  None.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                          J U D G M E N T (oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11 (6) of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of sole

Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes with respondent.

2. As per the averments made by petitioners, they are the owners of the

premises being an immoveable property, holding undivided share,

admeasuring 5,980 sq. ft. situated at Upper Ground Floor, Himalaya House,

23, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001. Vide a registered Lease

Deed dated 12.07.2017, petitioners had let out the premises to the

respondent for a period of 9 years from 15.11.2016 which would expire on

14.11.2025. According to the said deed, respondent was to pay to the

petitioners a lease rental of ₹130/- per sq. ft. per month for the premises in

question in advance on or before the 10th day of English calendar month,

subject to the deduction of income tax at source in proportion to the super

built-up area owned by each of the petitioners. It was also agreed in the said

lease deed that the rent was to be enhanced by 15 % on the expiry of every

block of 3 years and in case of delay in payment of the monthly rent, 1% per

month simple interest would carry over.

3. According to the petitioners, respondent was put in possession of the

premises by the petitioners and has been carrying on business therefrom.

Respondent did not pay the rent at the enhanced agreed rate for any period

and even rent paid at lesser rate which also paid for only some period, was

also delayed.

4. It is contended by the petitioners that as the respondent did not pay

any rent for the period April, 2020 to November 2020 and rents had

remained in arrears for more than 90 days on numerous occasions, thus, the

respondent had committed serious breach of the terms and conditions of the

lease deed.

5. Accordingly, petitioners were constrained to invoke clause 9.2.2 of

the said lease deed and serve the respondent with a notice dated 30.11.2020

and terminate the said Lease Deed dated 17.07.2017 and asking the

respondent to vacate the premises within 30 days of the receipt of the said

notice and remitting all the amounts due to the petitioners, however,

respondent did not comply with the aforesaid notice.

6. Thereafter petitioners sent a legal notice to the respondent on

12.01.2021 calling upon to vacate the premises and handover its possession

to the petitioners and make upto-date payment of arrears alongwith

enhancement, penalty, rent, interest accrued and GST within a period of 30

days from the date of receipt of the notice, however, respondent again did

not comply with the said legal notice.

7. Accordingly, petitioner invoked the arbitration agreement on

29.07.2021 and the parties had a meeting on the said date to discuss and

agree on the name of the sole arbitrator to be appointed. At the said

meeting, petitioner proposed two names for appointment of the arbitrator

and authorized representatives sought three days time. Thereafter,

respondent did not revert back, hence, the present petition has been filed.

8. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent.

9. As per office report from Registry, service report qua notice to

respondent through dasti, courier, speed post, email, fax and Whatsapp is

awaited. As per the office report from the Registry, notice sent to

respondent through the ordinary post and email is served.

10. According to affidavit of service filed by petitioner, service upon

respondent has been effected through dasti, speed post and courier and email

as is evident from dasti notice, track assignment slip and email which are

annexed with the affidavit of service by learned counsel for the petitioner.

However, considering the aforesaid facts, it can be said that respondent is

deemed to be served, but despite that, respondent has preferred not to appear

before this Court. It seems that respondent has nothing to oppose in the

present petition.

11. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly,

Mr. Sukhdev Singh, DHJS (Retd.) (Mobile: 9910384661) is appointed

sole Arbitrator in this petition to adjudicate the dispute between the parties.

12. The fee of the learned Arbitrator shall be governed by the Fourth

Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

13. The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.

14. The present petition stands disposed of.

15. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Arbitrator for information.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE DECEMBER 15, 2021 ab