Abhay Manohar Sapre JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Delay condoned. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is filed by the Defendant against the final judgment and order dated 27.07.2016 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in F.A.O. No. 344 of 2016 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellant herein and upheld the order dated 11.04.2016 of the Additional District Judge-05, South East Dist., Saket Courts, New Delhi in C.S. No. 132 of 2016.
3. The question involved in the appeal is short. It arises on the facts, which lie in a narrow compass.
4. The question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the two Courts below were justified in rejecting the application filed by the Appellant herein Under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in a pending civil suit filed by the Respondent seeking Appellant's eviction from the premises in question and for claiming some ancillary reliefs therein.
5. The Appellant is the Defendant whereas the Respondent is the Plaintiff in a civil suit out of which this appeal arises.
6. The Respondent has filed a suit being C.S. No. 132/2016 against the Appellant on 17.08.2015 in the Court of ADJ-05, South East Dist., Saket Courts, New Delhi.
7. The suit is filed essentially to seek Appellant's eviction from Shop No. SF-2 measuring around 317.29 Sq. ft. situated at 2nd floor in a Commercial Complex known as "Omaxe Square" in Block No. 14, Non-Hierarchy Commercial Center, District Center Jasola, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the suit premises") and for recovery of unpaid arrears of rent and grant of permanent injunction.
8. According to the Respondent, the suit premises was leased out to the Appellant vide lease deed dated 31.08.2010 executed between the Appellant and the Respondent's predecessor-in-title for a period of three years from 07.10.2010. The lease period stipulated in the lease deed, however, expired by efflux of time and no fresh lease deed was executed thereafter between the parties for extension of the time period. The Appellant's tenancy was monthly and started from 1st of every month and ended on the last day of each month.
9. The Appellant, on being served with the notice of the civil suit, filed an application Under Section 8 of the Act. According to the Appellant, since the suit was founded on the lease deed dated 31.08.2010, which contained an arbitration Clause (9.8) for resolving the dispute arising out of the lease deed between the parties, and when admittedly the disputes had arisen in relation to the suit premises, the same were governed by the terms of the lease deed. It was contended that the civil suit to claim the reliefs in relation to the suit premises was, therefore, not maintainable and, in fact, barred and the remedy of the Respondent to get such disputes resolved is to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator by taking recourse to the procedure prescribed in Clause 9.8 of the lease deed.
10. In other words, the contention of the Appellant, in support of their application, was that since the disputes for which the civil suit is filed arise out of the lease deed dated 31.08.2010 which contained an arbitration Clause (9.8) for their