Karnataka High Court
Embassy Services Private Limited vs Iti Limited on 9 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:39856
CMP NO.303 OF 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO.303 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
EMBASSY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED
EMBASSY POINT, 1ST FLOOR,
150, INFANTRY ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REP. BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
MR. B.S. MOHAN.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R.V.S. NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
ITI LIMITED
HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT:
ITI BHAVAN, DOORAVANINAGAR
Digitally signed by BENGALURU - 560 016.
SHARMA ANAND
CHAYA REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER - HR
Location: HIGH MR. SAJAN ABRAHAM.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ARVIND KAMATH, ASGI FOR
MS. VARSHA HITTINHALLI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT,
1996, PRAYING TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR PURSUANT TO
CLAUSE 7.7 OF THE LEASE DEED DATED 22ND JUNE, 2018 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A TO ADJUDICATE UPON THE DISPUTES/
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PARTIES INTER ALIA IN TERMS OF
THE PETITIONER'S NOTICE DATED 03RD APRIL, 2025 VIDE
ANNEXURE-K.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:39856
CMP NO.303 OF 2025
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, COMING FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY,
E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
CAV ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner has sought for an
appointment of Sole Arbitrator as per clause 7.7 of the Lease
Deed dated 22nd June, 2018 (Annexure-A) for resolution of the
dispute/differences between the parties.
2. The facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication
of this petition are that the petitioner is a Company registered
under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in rendering services in
the area of property management. The respondent floated a
tender dated 13th February, 2017 to offer the lease of the
property in question and pursuant to the same, the petitioner-
Company had participated in the bid and declared as successful
bidder. Thereafter, the parties have entered into an agreement
as per lease deed dated 22nd June, 2018 (Annexure-A) and the
schedule property was leased by the respondent to the petitioner
for an initial period of 4 years 11 months. The lease of the
schedule property was to be extended as per clause 2.3 of the
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:39856
CMP NO.303 OF 2025
HC-KAR
Lease Deed dated 22nd June, 2018 (Annexure-A). It is the case
of the petitioner that the petitioner-Company exercised its option
to renew the lease, for which, the respondent replied that the
rent is on the lower side for commercial space resulting in
dispute between the parties. It is stated in the petition that the
petitioner-Company continues to be in possession of the
schedule property as a Lessee till date and is making rent in
terms of the lease deed. In the meanwhile, parties have
presented before the pre-institution mediation filed by the
respondent before the District Legal Services Authority,
Bengaluru (Annexure-G). The said proceedings failed on account
of the fact that the parties could not arrive at consensus. In the
meanwhile, the petitioner invoked arbitration clause by
addressing notice dated 03rd April, 2025 (Annexure-K) and
nominated Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajit J. Gunjal (Former Judge of
this Court) as Sole Arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute. In
response to the same, the respondent by its reply dated 20th
May, 2025 (Annexure-P) stated that the issue is not arbitrable
and the leased premises comes within the purview of the Public
Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for
short, hereinafter referred to as 'PP-Act') and as such, rejected
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:39856
CMP NO.303 OF 2025
HC-KAR
the claim made by the petitioner for appointment of an
Arbitrator. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court in the
present petition, seeking appointment of Arbitrator under
Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
3. Heard Sri. R.V.S. Naik , learned Senior Counsel on
behalf of Sri. Nitin Prasad, appearing for the petitioner and Sri.
Arvind Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor General of India on
behalf of Ms. Varsha Hittinhalli, appearing for the respondent.
4. Sri. R.V.S. Naik, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioner refers to Clause 7.7 of the Lease Deed dated
22nd June, 2018 (Annexure-A) and clause 2.3 of the said lease
deed and contended that the petitioner is entitled for extension
of lease period and same was resorted to after first extension of
time granted by the respondent. It is the submission of learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that, in view of the
dispute with regard to settlement of rent for further extension of
time, the petitioner continues to be in possession of the schedule
property.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
further submits that, in view of the arbitration clause in the
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:39856
CMP NO.303 OF 2025
HC-KAR
Lease Deed dated 22nd June, 2018 (Annexure-A), the provisions
under the PP-Act are not applicable to the case on hand and in
this regard, he refers to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION AND
ANOTHER vs. SIDHARTHA TILES & SANITARY PVT. LTD.
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2983.
6. Nextly, by referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of DATAR SWITCHGEARS LTD. vs.
TATA FINANCE LTD. AND ANOTHER reported in (2008) 8 SCC
151, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued
that, even if the dispute arises out of the lease agreement, the
matter is arbitrable in nature as the parties are bound by the
same. Accordingly, he sought for allowing the petition.
7. Per contra, Sri. Arvind Kamath, learned Additional
Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondent refers to
Section 2(g), 4 and 15 of the PP-Act and submitted that, the PP-
Act provides for adjudication of dispute by competent officer and
therefore, such dispute cannot be referred to the Arbitrator for
resolution. It is further argued by learned Additional Solicitor
General of India that, since the petitioner herein is an
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:39856
CMP NO.303 OF 2025
HC-KAR
unauthorised occupant by efflux of lease period as per lease
deed dated 22nd June, 2018 (Annexure-A), the petition deserves
to be dismissed.
8. In this regard, learned Additional Solicitor General of
India places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of INTERNATIONAL AMUSEMENT LIMITED vs.
INDIA TRADE PROMOTION ORGANISATION reported in AIR
2015 SC 749, particularly by referring to paragraph 24 of the
judgment, it is contended that, the issue arising out of the lease
deed in respect of a statutory authority requires to be
adjudicated by the competent officer under the PP-Act and
accordingly, sought for dismissal of the petition. It is also
argued by the learned Additional Solicitor General of India
appearing for the respondent that the petitioner-Company is an
unauthorised occupant and accordingly, eviction Notice dated
12th September, 2025 came to be issued to the petitioner-
Company by the respondent and therefore, the issue involved
between the parties is not arbitrable in nature. In this regard,
learned Additional Solicitor General of India places reliance on
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HLV
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:39856
CMP NO.303 OF 2025
HC-KAR
LIMITED vs. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA in Arbitration
Appeal (Stamp) No.12153/2021 and connected petitions on the
file of the Judicature at Bombay Civil Appellate Jurisdiction.
9. Sri. Arvind Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor
General of India, by referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of VIDYA DROLIA AND OTHERS
vs. DURGA TRADING CORPORATION reported in (2021)2
SCC 1, particularly, by referring to paragraphs 19 to 21 of the
judgment, argued that the matter pertaining to the eviction or
tenancy matters governed by special statutes are not arbitrable
in nature. Emphasising on these aspects, learned Additional
Solicitor General of India places reliance on the judgment dated
21st July, 2025 in SLP (C) NO.17350-51/2025 and argued that
the judgment of the Bombay High Court in HLV LTD. (supra)
has been confirmed and therefore the essential matter pertaining
to eviction is covered under the provisions of PP-Act. It is further
argued that, except the eviction proceedings, other matters like
Arrears of Rent and Renewal of licence are arbitrable in nature.
Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the petition.
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:39856
CMP NO.303 OF 2025
HC-KAR
10. In reply to the same, Sri. R.V.S. Naik, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company argued that the
petitioner is not an unauthorised occupant in terms of clause 2.3
of the Lease Deed dated 22nd June, 2018 (Annexure-A), as the
period of lease was continued at the option of the Lessee
(petitioner) and therefore, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of CENTRAL WAREHOUSING
COROPORATION (supra) is squarely applicable to the case on
hand.
11. In the light of the submission made by learned
counsel appearing for the parties, the question arises for
consideration in this petition as to interpretation of clause 2.3
read with clause 7.7 of the Lease Deed dated 22nd June, 2018
(Annexure-A). It is not in dispute that the petitioner had taken
premises in question on lease as per Deed of Lease dated 22nd
June, 2018 (Annexure-A). Clause 1 of the said lease deed
provides for lease for a period of 4 years 11 months from the
date of the Agreement. The further period of 4 years 11 months
be extended at the option of the Lessee as per clause 2.3 of the
lease deed. Clause 2.3 of the Lease Deed provides as follows:
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:39856
CMP NO.303 OF 2025
HC-KAR
"2.3. Extension and Escalation: If the LESSEE opts to
extend the lease granted hereunder, extension of lease for
each further term of 4 years and 11 months will be subject
to an escalation of 10% on the rent last paid prior to such
lease extension. Every exercise of the option to extend the
lease by the LESSEE shall be made in writing prior to expiry
of the lease granted hereunder (i.e. during the Term or any
extended period thereof) and upon such election by the
LESSEE, the lease granted hereunder shall stand extended
for the further periods of 4 years and 11 months with these
agreed terms and conditions to maximum of three terms
after the first term."
(emphasis supplied)
12. The Clause 7.5 provides for application of the PP-Act
as the Lessor is a Central Government Undertaking. Clause 7.7
provides for resolution of dispute by an Arbitrator, which reads
as under:
"7.7. The parties shall make best efforts to settle any/all
disputes amicably within 30 days of communication
thereof. All disputes or differences whatsoever, arising out
of this Agreement including the interpretation of any
provisions shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with
the provision of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
(as Amended from time to time). The Arbitration panel
consists of a Sole Arbitrator to be mutually appointed by
the Lessor and the Lessee. The decision of the Arbitrator
will be binding on all the parties to this Agreement. The
language of the Arbitration proceedings shall be English.
Place of arbitration will be at Bengaluru."
13. It is also forthcoming from the petition papers that,
as per Clause 2.3 of the lease Deed, the lease period would be
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39856
CMP NO.303 OF 2025
HC-KAR
completed by 21st May, 2023. The petitioner addressed letter
dated 07th March, 2023 (Annexure-B) to the respondent, seeking
renewal of lease as per Clause 2.3 of the lease deed. It is
pertinent to mention here that the extension of the lease as per
Clause 2.3 is at the option of Lessee (petitioner).
14. Perusal of the reply dated 24th March, 2023
(Annexure-C) made by the respondent with regard to
reconsideration of the rental amount by increasing the escalation
of rent, it is clear that the reply dated 24th March, 2023
(Annexure-C) is pertaining to escalation of the rent and not for
eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question. This
fact is emphasised in the letter dated 02nd August, 2023
(Annexure-E). In the meanwhile, the respondent issued eviction
notice dated 12th September, 2025 to the petitioner and same is
challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.28562 of 2025
and this Court, by order dated 19th September, 2025 stayed all
further proceedings pursuant to the Notice dated 12th
September, 2025. In the backdrop of these aspects, as the
respondent has issued Notice dated 12th September, 2025,
seeking eviction of the petitioner from the leased premises and
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39856
CMP NO.303 OF 2025
HC-KAR
on the other hand, the petitioner herein seeking extension of
period of lease in terms of clause 2.3 of the Lease Deed dated
22nd June, 2018 (Annexure-A), I am of the view that the issue
involved between the parties in the present petition is pertaining
to the extension of the lease period and not touching the eviction
proceedings initiated under the provisions of the PP-Act. I have
carefully perused the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of VIDYA DROLIA (supra), wherein, paragraph 21 reads
as under:
"21. Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. draws a distinction
between actions in personam, that is, actions which
determine the rights and interests of parties themselves in
the subject-matter of the case, and actions in rem which
refer to actions determining the title of the property and
the rights of the parties not merely amongst themselves
but also against all the persons at any time claiming an
interest in that property. Rights in personam are
considered to be amenable to arbitration and disputes
regarding rights in rem are required to be adjudicated by
the courts and public tribunals. The latter actions are
unsuitable for private arbitration. Disputes relating to
subordinate rights in personam arising from rights in rem
are considered to be arbitrable. Para 36 of the judgment in
Booz Allen & Hamilton Increfers to certain examples of
non-arbitrable disputes and reads:
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39856
CMP NO.303 OF 2025
HC-KAR
"36. The well-recognised examples of non-
arbitrable disputes are : (i) disputes relating to
rights and liabilities which give rise to or arise out
of criminal offences; (ii) matrimonial disputes
relating to divorce, judicial separation, restitution
of conjugal rights, child custody; (iii) guardianship
matters; (iv) insolvency and winding-up matters;
(v) testamentary matters (grant of probate, letters
of administration and succession certificate); and
(vi) eviction or tenancy matters governed by
special statutes where the tenant enjoys statutory
protection against eviction and only the specified
courts are conferred jurisdiction to grant eviction
or decide the disputes."
15. It is also pertinent to mention here that, Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of HLV LTD. (supra) at paragraph 5
and 14 held as under:
"5. The eviction proceedings have been instituted on the
premise that the leases for the two parcels of land have
expired. According to the High Court, the continued
occupation of the land is unauthorised and would bring the
matter within the jurisdiction of Chapter VA of the AAI Act."
****
14. At this point of time, we see no good reason to
interfere with the impugned judgment and order (s) passed
by the High Court."
16. It is also to be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of INTERNATIONAL AMUSEMENT LTD. (supra) at
paragraph 3 and 24 held as under:
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39856
CMP NO.303 OF 2025
HC-KAR
"3. The appellant herein was running an amusement park
in Pragati Maidan, New Delhi since the year 1984, which
was well known as "Appu Ghar". The land for the purpose
was initially allotted to the appellant by India Trade
Promotion Organisation (for short "ITPO") on licence basis
as the lease between the Central Government and ITPO
was still pending and as such permanent allotment of the
land could not be made in favour of the appellant. Only as
an administrative measure, the licence agreements were
entered into between the appellant and ITPO. The appellant
claimed that it was the permanent allottee of the land for
running the amusement park on the similar lines as were
allotted in favour of the Statutory Corporations/
Instrumentalities of the State and the Central Government.
It was only on the assurance of the Land and Development
Office (for short "L and DO"), Ministry of Urban
Development and ITPO that the appellant made huge
amount of investment for establishing and running "Appu
Ghar". The last agreement entered into between the parties
was on 6-11-1995. In the said agreement, arbitration
Clauses 27 and 28 were incorporated, which are extracted
hereunder:
"27. The licensed premises are public premises as
defined in the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 and fall within
the jurisdiction of the Estate Officer, Pragati
Maidan.
28. In case of any dispute arising out of or in
connection with this agreement the disputes shall
be referred to the sole arbitration of the Chairman,
India Trade Promotion Organisation or his nominee
whose decision/award shall be final, conclusive and
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39856
CMP NO.303 OF 2025
HC-KAR
binding on the parties. Application for reference to
arbitration shall be made by either party within
two months of arising of the dispute.
24. In view of the aforesaid decisions and the law laid
down by this Court in a catena of cases referred to supra
which are reiterated in P. Dasaratharama Reddy (supra) we
are of the view that Clause 28 in the agreement which is
referred to in the case on hand is not an arbitration clause.
Therefore, the appointment of an arbitrator by the nominee
of the Chief Justice has been rightly set aside in the
impugned judgment by the Division Bench of the Delhi High
Court. The law laid down by this Court in the abovereferred
judgments, after interpretation of the relevant arbitration
clauses in the agreement in those cases, are aptly
applicable to the fact situation on hand and we answer the
questions of law framed by this Court against the appellant
and in favour of ITPO and the Union of India."
17. In the light of the law declared by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases, it is to be noted that, if
there is an issue pertaining to the eviction of the tenant by the
landlord (as per Section 2(g) of the PP-Act) in terms of the
Agreement, such dispute has to be resolved as per the provisions
under PP-Act. In the case on hand, though the period of lease
was expired on 21st May, 2023, after completion of 4 years and
11 months as per the Clause 1.1 of the Lease Deed dated 22nd
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39856
CMP NO.303 OF 2025
HC-KAR
June, 2018 (Annexure-A), and thereafter, the petitioner-
Company made representation dated 07th March, 2023, seeking
renewal of lease deed, which was not disputed by the respondent
and respondent-Lessor is receiving the rents from the petitioner-
Lessee and therefore, I am of the view that, as far as the issue
relating to the renewal of lease is concerned, the petitioner
cannot be considered as an unauthorised occupant under Section
2(g) of the PP-Act. In that view of the matter, the judgment
referred to by the Additional Solicitor General of India appearing
for the respondent cannot be made applicable to the case on
hand. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of CENTRAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (supra),
the issue involved in the present petition is to be resolved only
by an Arbitrator as per clause 7.7 of the Lease Deed dated 22nd
June, 2018 (Annexure-A). In this regard, it is relevant to
extract paragraphs 8 to 14 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of CENTRAL WAREHOUSING
CORPORATION (supra), which reads as under:
"8. It is an admitted fact that even before the order
of the Estate Officer under the Public Premises Act could be
passed, the respondent is said to have vacated the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39856
CMP NO.303 OF 2025
HC-KAR
premises on 13.11.2015. The Estate Officer any way
passed his order on 31.12.2015 holding that the
respondent was in unauthorised possession only from
11.09.2015 (i.e. when the lease expired) to 13.11.2015
(when premises were vacated) and also directed payment
of certain dues as indicated in the demand notice.
9. It is in the above referred background that the
respondent invoked arbitration by filing an application
under Section 11(6) of the Act for the appointment of an
arbitrator in view of a subsisting arbitration clause in the
agreement. The said clause is as under:
"16. All disputes and differences arising out of
or in any way touching upon or concerning this
agreement whatsoever shall be referred to the sole
Arbitration of any person appointed by the Managing
Director, Central Warehousing Corporation New
Delhi. The Award of such Arbitrator shall be final and
binding on the Parties to this agreement. It is a term
of this agreement that in the event of such arbitrator
to whom the matter is originally referred/being
transferred or vacating his office or being unable to
act for any reason the Central Warehousing
Corporation at that time shall appoint any other
person to act as Arbitrator in accordance with the
terms of this agreement. Such person shall be
entitled to proceed with the reference from the stage
at which it was left by his predecessors. The
Arbitrator shall give a speaking award.
The venue of Arbitration shall be at such place as
may be fixed by the Arbitrator at his sole discretion.
The cost of arbitration shall be borne by the parties
as per the decision of the Arbitrator.
The Arbitrator shall give separate award respect of
each dispute or difference referred him,
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39856
CMP NO.303 OF 2025
HC-KAR
In to Subject as aforesaid, the Arbitration &
Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply to the Arbitration
proceedings under this clause."
10. The application under Section 11 specifically
speaks about the dispute that has arisen under the
agreement dated 26.09.2012. Broadly, they relate to the
right of renewal of the contract and also the legality and
propriety of the revision of rates during the subsistence of
the agreement.
11. The High Court considered the matter in detail
and came to the conclusion that the claims made in the
notice followed by the application under Section 11 are
clearly covered by the arbitration clause. The relevant
portions of the High Court Judgment is as under:
"12. On going through the same, it is seen that as
per the said clause all disputes and differences
arising out of or in any way touching upon or
concerning the agreement have to be referred to the
sole arbitration of any person appointed by the
Managing Director of the Corporation. Award of such
arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties to
the agreement. The arbitrator shall also decide the
venue of arbitration and the cost of arbitration shall
be borne by the parties as per the decision of the
arbitrator. The arbitrator is required to give separate
award in respect of each dispute or difference
referred to him. Thus, the crucial words in Clause 16
are "all disputes and differences arising out of or in
any way touching upon or concerning the
agreement. According to the petitioner, the
agreement for dedicated warehousing entered into
between the parties on 26.09.2012 clearly
mentioned the rate of storage charge i.e. Rs. 131-00
per square meter per month. But the Corporation
unilaterally enhanced the storage charge rate with
effect from 01.11.2012 at the gross area rate of Rs.
157-00 per Square meter per month and net area
rate of Rs. 216-00 per square meter per month.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39856
CMP NO.303 OF 2025
HC-KAR
13. The second area of dispute is with regard
to extension of the agreement for dedicated
warehousing. As per Clause No 1 the period of
dedicated warehousing was for three years with
effect from 12.09.2012, but both the parties had the
option of renewing the agreement for a further
period as mutually agreed upon on expiry of the
term of the agreement. It is on these two issues
that notice of arbitration was given to the Managing
Director of the Corporation by the petitioner on
23.09.2015. As per the postal tracking (page32 of
the paper book), the same was delivered on
26.09.2015. In any case respondent has not
disputed receipt of the notice. According to the
respondent, it is not an arbitral dispute being
beyond the agreement."
12. Questioning the judgment and order passed by
the High Court, referring the dispute to arbitration, the
appellant filed the present appeal. Though the question
relating to whether the Public Premises Act will override the
Arbitration Act has been raised and argued before the High
Court. This court issued notice in the special leave petition
on the basis of the question so formulated. We could have
dismissed the special leave petition on this very ground but
as notice was issued on this point and the appeal has been
pending for some time, we considered it appropriate to
hear the appellant on this question and decide the case. We
will first answer the issue relating to the applicability of the
Public Premises Act.
13. Re: Whether the Public Premises Act, 1971
overrides the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: This
submission has to fail. The reasons are simple and straight
forward. The dispute that is raised in the Section 11
application relate to promises and reciprocal promises
arising out of the agreement dated 26.09.2012. The right
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39856
CMP NO.303 OF 2025
HC-KAR
of renewal as well as the legality and propriety of the
enhanced demand arose during the subsistence of the
agreement. It will be on the interpretation, construction
and the obligations arising out of the agreement that the
respondent's claim rests. On the other hand, The Public
Premises Act authorises the ejectment of a tenant in
unauthorised occupation of public premises and for
consequential directions. The original lease as it were,
validly subsisted till 11.09.2015 and the dispute between
the parties related to the period commencing from
12.09.2012 to 11.09.2015, when the lease expired. The
Public Premises Act would not even cast a shadow on this
period. In so far as the dispute relating to this right of
renewal is concerned, it depends on the terms of the
agreement. The Public Premises Act neither bars nor
overlaps with the scope and ambit of proceedings that were
initiated under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
14. Whether the High Court committed any error in
appointing the arbitrator while exercising the jurisdiction
under Section 11: We have already extracted the relevant
portion of the order passed by the High Court. The revision
of storage charges occurred during the subsistence of the
contract. Its legality and propriety will depend on the terms
of the agreement dated 26.09.2012. Similarly, the right of
renewal will also be based on and a construct of the said
agreement. These two disputes will undoubtedly arise out
of the agreement between the parties and the resolution of
such disputes is clearly covered by the arbitration clause
(Cl. 16 of the agreement). After the recent decision of this
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39856
CMP NO.303 OF 2025
HC-KAR
court in SBI General Insurance Co. (supra) the remit of the
referral court to consider an application under Section
11(6) is clear and unambiguous. We need to just examine
the existence of an arbitration agreement. The context is
clearly delineated in paras 110-111 and 114 of the
judgment which are extracted below for ready reference.
"110. The scope of examination under Section 11(6-
A) is confined to the existence of an arbitration
agreement on the basis of Section 7. The
examination of validity of the arbitration agreement
is also limited to the requirement of formal validity
such as the requirement that the agreement should
be in writing.
111. The use of the term 'examination' under Section
11(6-A) as distinguished from the use of the term
'rule' under Section 16 implies that the scope of
enquiry under section 11(6-A) is limited to a prima
facie scrutiny of the existence of the arbitration
agreement, and does not include a contested or
laborious enquiry, which is left for the arbitral
tribunal to 'rule' under Section 16. The prima facie
view on existence of the arbitration agreement taken
by the referral court does not bind either the arbitral
tribunal or the court enforcing the arbitral award.
[...]
114. In view of the observations made by this Court
in In Re: Interplay (supra), it is clear that the scope
of enquiry at the stage of appointment of arbitrator is
limited to the scrutiny of prima facie existence of the
arbitration agreement, and nothing else.
[...]"
(emphasis supplied)
18. In the case of CENTRAL WAREHOUSING
CORPORATION (supra), perusal of the fact would indicate that
the respondent therein had vacated the premises and further,
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39856
CMP NO.303 OF 2025
HC-KAR
the Estate Officer of the petitioner-Corporation therein sought for
eviction of the respondent therein. In the instant case, the
petitioner-Company is not an unauthorised occupant and further
the respondent herein is receiving rents from the petitioner and
proceedings initiated by the respondent by causing legal notice
dated 12th September, 2025 is stayed by this Court in Writ
Petition No.28562 of 2025 and therefore, I am of the opinion
that the contention raised by the learned Additional Solicitor
General of India appearing for the respondent cannot be
accepted. Hence, I am of the opinion that , as the issue involved
between the parties is for renewal of the lease period and same
has to be adjudicated by an Arbitrator as per clause 7.7 of the
Lease Deed dated 22nd June, 2008 (Annexure-A), the petition,
seeking appointment of Arbitrator deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
(a) Civil Miscellaneous Petition allowed;
(b) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ram Mohan Reddy, former
Judge of this Court is appointed as the Sole
Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the
parties at the Arbitration and Conciliation
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:39856
CMP NO.303 OF 2025
HC-KAR
Centre, Bengaluru in terms of clauses 7.7 of the
Lease Deed dated 22nd June, 2008 (Annexure-
A);
(c) The Registry is directed to communicate this
order (by E-mail) to the Arbitration and
Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru and also to
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ram Mohan Reddy, former
Judge of this Court forthwith.
(d) Since, the parties are appeared through their
learned counsels, parties are directed to appear
before the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre,
Bengaluru on 30th October, 2025 at 11.00 a.m.
Sd/-
(E.S. INDIRESH)
JUDGE
ARK
