USHA WADHWA  Vs PUSHPA SHARMA, SOLE PROPRIETOR, PET STORE

ARB.P. 554/2020 Page 1 of 5

$~ 9 (Original Side)
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ ARB.P. 554/2020
USHA WADHWA ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. PK Agrawal, Ms. Tannya Sharma
& Ms. Deepti Gupta, Advs.
versus
PUSHPA SHARMA, SOLE PROPRIETOR, PET STORE
….. Respondent
Through: Mr. Saket Sikri, Adv.

CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

(i) The petition er owns the premises at E-8,East of Kailash New
Delhi 110065 . Lease, in respect thereo f, was granted to the defendant,
who is the sole proprietor of an establishment, name d The Pet Store –
with a registered lease deed dated 27J U D G E M E N T (ORAL)
% 14.01.2021
(Video-Conferencing)

1. This is a petition under section 11 (6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation
Act, 1996 (h ereinafter referred to as “ the 1996 Act”), seeking reference of
the dispute between the parties to arbitration.

2. The facts of the case , as set out in the petition, which disclose the
existence of arbitrable dispute , may be enumerated th us:

th
June, 2018.
2021:DHC:155ARB.P. 554/2020 Page 2 of 5

(ii) The lease c overed the basement and part of the ground floor of
the aforesaid property (hereinafter referred to as “ the property ”). The
respondent was required to pay rent @ ₹ 8,50,000/ – plus GST per
month which could be increased by 10% every three years. The
tenanc y was over a period of fifteen years with the initial seven years
stipulated as a lock- in period.

(iii) Consequent to taking the aforesaid premises on lease , the
petitioner states that she, and her husband Dr Manmohan Sharma,
undertook large scale renovations of the property , so as to make it
serviceable as a veterinary hospital. These renovations also covered
part of the ground floor , the entire first floor and the entire second
floor and the entire third floor of the property , which were taken on
lease by another concern , stated to be of the respondent namely The
Max Vets Hospital s Private Limited, vide lease deed dated 27th
June,
2018.
(iv) Rent , for the month of June 2018, was waived by the petitioner.
The respondent paid rent for the month of July 2018, from the
personal account of the respondent and her husband, and for the
months of August, September, October and November 2018 from the
account of The Max Vets Hospital s Private Limited. From January
2019 onwards , rent was paid from the account of The Pet Store ,
However, it is alleged that no rent has been paid in December 2018.

(v) The petition further alleges that the respondent deducted, from
the rent, for the period 20th July, 2018 to 2 0th July, 2019 , ₹ 85,000/ –
per month towards TDS, but did not depos it the said amount, to the
Income Tax authorities. Consequent to a demand by the petitioner, the
2021:DHC:155ARB.P. 554/2020 Page 3 of 5

respondent paid ₹ 12,11,750/- by cheques, which was appropriated by
the petitioner towards deduction of TDS and interest thereon .

(vi) The petition alleges that subsequent r econciliation of the
accounts disclosed that the respondent had paid rent only for eight
months, instead of nine months from July, 2018 to March, 2019,
resulting in the respondent becoming liable to pay ₹ 9,18,000/- for the
month of December 201 8.

(vii) It is further alleged that, after March 2020, the respondent has
defaulted, in the payment of rent. For the period April to August ,
2020 , it is alleged that the respondent has short paid rent to the tune
of ₹ 30,14,050/-. A demand from the petitioner , to the respondent , to
pay the unpaid rent, it is alleged, proved futile.
(viii) On 22
nd August 2 020, the petitioner addressed a notice to the
respondent , calling on the respondent to pay ₹ 30,14,050/-w ithin 15
days, failing which the tenancy would stand term inated with effect
from 2 0th
September , 2020. The respondent was also notified that, in
the event of such termination, she would be come liable to pay arrears
of rent till September 2020 along with rent f or 58 months of the lock-
in period, which would total to ₹ 6,43,12,360 /-.
(ix) The petitioners contention is that the tenancy stands terminated
by operation of the relevant covenants of the lease deed and that, as a
result , the aforesaid amounts have become payable by the respondent
to the petitioner.

2021:DHC:155ARB.P. 554/2020 Page 4 of 5

(x) The total c laim of the petitioner against the respondent works
out to ₹ 39,32,0 50/- as arrears till August 20 20, ₹ 20,06,000/ – as rent
for the months of September and October 2020 and alleged ly short
paid rent of ₹ 18,05,400/ – on 20th October, 2020 and 21st

3. Mr Saket Sikri, learn ed counsel for the respondent, does not contest
the existence of an arbitra ble dispute. However, he questions the correctness
of the aforesaid claims of the petitioner. That, however, would be a matter
for decision by the learned Arbitral Tribunal.

4. The parties have not been able to arr ive at a consensus regarding the
arbitrator to arbitrate on the afo resaid dispute .

3. The petitioner and the respondent have not been able to arrive at a
consensus regarding the arbitrator to arbitrate on the dispute, necessitating
intervention of this court in the matter. In v iew there of, the court appoints
Justice Brijesh Sethi (retired), who has recently retired as a learned Judge of
this Court, a s arbitrator to arbitrate on the disputes between the parties. The
contact details of the learned arbitrator are as under:
AB-5 ,Purana Quila Road,
Octobe r,
2020, apart from the balance lock in period rent of ₹ 6,23,06, 360/-,
covering the period from November, 2020 to June, 2025.
New Delhi
Mobile No- 9910384669
Email ID: justice brijeshsethi@gmail.com

5. With consent, the arbitrator would arbitrate on the dispute under the
aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).
2021:DHC:155ARB.P. 554/2020 Page 5 of 5

6. The respondent shall also be at liberty to raise counter claims before
the learned arbitrator, in accordance with law.

7. In view the reof, the arbitration w ould proceed in accordance with the
protocol and the fees would also be determined by the DIAC in accordance
with its schedule of fees.

8. The parties are directed to contact the concerned officer of the DIAC,
as well as the learned sole arbitrator , within 48 hours of communication by
them, of a cop y of this order by e -mail by the registry.
9. The arbitrator would submit the requisite disclosure under section
12(2) of the 1996 act within a week of entering on the reference
10. With the aforesaid directions, this petition stands disposed of.

C.HARI SHANKAR, J
JANUARY 14, 2021
/ss
2021:DHC:155