ARBAPPL/123/2025 of Ajmal Ziauddin Sanai Vs M/s Bajaj Electronics on 8 October 2026

ORDER:

1. The appllcant has sought for the appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicare the dispute arising out of ,a Lease Deed darecl 28.06 2018.

lesser: irr respect of th c comme rcial The applicant is the lcssor and the respondent No. i is the propert]- situated at Road No. 1ilA, Valic,-r. Vicu., Banjara Hiils, Hl,derabad -

I

3. Clause 13 of the Lease Deed contains an Arbitration Clause which provid es, inter atia' tlnat if a dispute arising between the parties out of or in connection with the Lease Deed is not resolved through mutual discussions within thirty (30) days, one parry sha11 sen'e a Notice on the other party and the dispute sha11 be frnally settled by way of Arbitration under the provisions of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act' 1996 (A&C ActJ by a mutually agreed and jointly appointed arbitrator' failing which an arbitrator shall be appointed in accordance with the A&C Act.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the dispute arises out of Serial No'6 ('Lease Term') of the Schedule attached to the Lease Deed which stipulates a rental period of 15 years, renewable every 5 (five) years for three terms each, with a lock-in period after each term under the same terms and conditions, from the rent commencement date of 1"t July, 2018 to 30th June, 2033

5. Counsel submlts that the respondent No' 1 issued a Notice of Intent to vacate on 07 '03 2025 and failed to adhere to the provided in Serial No 6 of the Counsel further submits that the Lease Term/ Lock-ln Period Schedule to the Lease Deed' applicant accordingly issued a Notice invoking Arbitration to the address of the respondent No. 1 on 2l .O4.2025, nominating an arbitrator

6. The respondenl No. I however gave lu'o replies on 05.05.2025 and 15.05.2025, stating, inter alia. rhat the Lease Deed is closed and that the respondent No.I w'll continue to occupy thr: prcmises until thc applicant returns the security dep, rsit of Rs.3 I .5O Iakhs.

7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No. I / lcssee submits that the respondent No. 1 issued the Notice of Intent to vacate indicating that the Lease Deed had expired in 20211. ri'ithout any further rene$,al thereafter. Scnior Counsel furtl-rer submits thar the Lease Deed is unre.gistered and insulficient.ly stamped. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case. there is no valid Lease Deed at all.

8. It is aLso submitred that Serial No.6 of the Schedule to the Lease Deecl merkes it clear that the applicant see,ks to loist a Ieasc in perpetuitl. on the respondent No.1.

9. i have considered thc submissions made on behalf of the applicant/ lr:ssor, rr.ho seeks the appointment of an arbitrator, and Lhc respondent No. 1/lessee, who disputes the very nature of Lh c. Lease Dce d.

-

10. At the very outset, it should be pointed out that Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No'l has taken a fair stand and has made his submissions in accordance with the law cited on the subject' I 1. From the documents, it is evident that the Arbitration Agreement contained in Clause 13 of the Lease Deed is an independent agreement which can survive on its own despite the alleged expiry of the Lease Deed in 2023 Section i 1(6A) of theA&CActprovidesthattheCourt,whileconsideringany application under sub-sections (4), (5) or (6)' sha1l be confined to the examination of the 'existence' of an arbitration agreement'

12. Further, the interpretation of Serial No'6 of the Schedule to the Lease Deed is a matter within the domain of arbitration' namely, whether the respondent No'1/lessee should be bound by the lock-in period contained in Serial No'6 of the Schedule' It is also settled law that the alleged infirmity of the Lease Deed itself, by virtue of being unregistered or insufhciently stamped' is a matter which can be adjudicated by an arbitrator'

13. It is evident liom the rival submissions and the material onrecord.thatthereisaliveandsubsistingdisputebetweenthe parties which squarely falls within Serial No 13 (the Arbitration J Cl:rrise ol the l-easc Deed). The dispute is evident from the respondent No. I's rwo replies to the applicant,s Notice of lnvocation. While the applicant claims substantral amounts by wav of vearlv escalatrons, monthl!. rents and the lock-in period, the respondent No.I disputes the conrinuation of the Lease Decd and clemands refund of the security deposit.

14. The existence of thc dispute between the parties is dirt'cr1r'relatable to and ariscs out of the Lease Dced. The facts further shos, that the applicant has establisht:d a case for app()inlment of an arbitraror under secrion 1l((r) of the A&C Act.

15. In vit:',r, ol the above, this Court finds it zLppropriate to allos, the Arbitration Application and appoint an arbitrator in ternrs of the Arbitration Clause executed between the partres.

16. In view of the submissions made by counsel appearing for the:rpplicant and Senior Counscl appearing for the respondent No.1. Sri Justicc L. Narasimha Redd1,, lletired Chief Justice of I)atnrr F{igh Court. H.No.2-2 23l3l3, Durgabar Deshmukh Colonr, NezLr O.U. Campus, Bagh Amberpet, I{yderabad _ 5000 13. Mobile No 9,140621406, is hereby appo;nted as the Sole.\rbirraror to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.

-

The parties sha11 appear before the learned Arbitrator on along with a coPY of this order' The thereafter proceed with the Arbitral 24.10.2026 at 11.00 A M learned Arbitrator shall Proceedings in accordance with law'

17. The parties are at liberty to raise all the contentious issues before the learned Arbitralor' The fee ol the Arbitrator as well as the other terms and conditions' sha11 be settled by the parties in consultation with the Arbitrator so appointed' 1ti. Arbjtration Application No 123 of 2025' along with al1 connected applications, is accordingly allowed' SD/- M. VIJAYA BHASKER JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. Sri Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Retired Chief Justice of Patna High Court, H.No.2-2-25t313, Durgabai Deshmukh Colony, near O.U Campus, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad - 5000'13, tt/lobile No.9440621406 (By Special Messenger)(Along with a Copy of affidavit and material papers)

2. One CC to Mr. Syed Hassan Bin Taher, Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to Mr. Omar A Pasha, Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies KAIV/GNK t" lilA, w

HIGH COURT DATED: 08t1012026

ORDER

ARBAPPL.No.123 of 2025 ALLOWING THE ARBITRATION APPLICATION 1i1E s o ( :) -+ ..) J lE 0cT 2[m z C) t t Or- i'AT Ct{ q1'1 li L lL. \