IN THE COURT OF SH.

TARUN KUMAR VERMA, LD, CJ, GURUGRAM

COURT, NEW DELHI

Case No. RP/137/2021

IN THE MATTER OF:

DEEPAK GUPTA …Petitioner

Vs.

M/s BABA BANJO …Respondent

BRIEF NOTE

S.NO DATED PARTICULAR

1. 18.02.2022 Petition under Section 13 Haryana Urban (Control

of Rent and eviction) Act, 1973 filed by the
Petitioner

 He is owner of I-902 Ambience Lagoon

Apartments, NH-8, Gurugram (Haryana)
 Petitioner is suffering from 3rd stage Rectal
Cancer
 Lease deed 66234414 dated 30 july 2020
executed on 02.08.2020 for the period of
01.03.2020 to 31.01.2021 for consideration
of rent ₹ 85000 per month
 Petitioner committed default in payment of
rent, electricity etc and said default got
effective from lease ended 28-02-2020.
 Clause 32 Arbitration Clause invoked where
Ld. Arbitrator awarded dated 30.06.2021 a
claim of ₹ 14,71,596 in favor of petitioner
with future interest @18% per annum from
date of award along with electricity,
maintenance, gas, and other consumptions .
 Three cheques were issued by the respondent
bearing no.
-049794 dated 22.05.2021 of rs 50,000
049795 dated 22.06.2021 of rs 50,000 both
drawn on ICICI bank sec 54 rejected saying
Funds Insufficient.
 Complaint filed under section 138 NI Act is
pending before Hon’ble court of Sh Vivek
 Singh JMFC.
 Rent agreement dated 02.08.2020 stands
expired on 31.01.2020 and has not been
renewed.

2. 11.04.2022 Application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC r/w 151

cpc filed by respondent to set aside ex-parte order
against respondent.

3. Reply to application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC

r/w 151 cpc by petitioner.

4. 4.05.2022 Petition under Section 13 Haryana Urban (Control

of Rent and eviction) Act, 1973 for assessment of
rent

 Respondent proceeded ex-parte vide order

dated 11.04.2022 on account of failure to
appear and non-filing of reply to main
petition in spite of several opportunities.
 Court fixed date of hearing of ex-parte as on
4.05.2022
 The applicant being retired senior citizen
suffering from advanced stage of cancer, is
only source of income as rent from the suit
property.
 Grand total due = ₹ 3837139

5. 17.05.2022 Reply to petition under section 13 Haryana Urban

(control of Rent and eviction) Act 1973 for
assessment of rent by respondent

 application is not maintainable and liable to

be dismissed. That on 30.06.2021 an award
was already pass by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator
Sh. Sunder Singh (Advocate) wherein the Ld.
Sole Arbitrator has erroneously allowed the
claims of the petitioner and against the
respondent herein.
 Respondent and Petitioner has entered into a
lease agreement dated 04.04.2019 wherein
the Respondent has taken a residential
apartment bearing No. I-92, Ambience
Lagoon Apartments, NH-8, Gurgaon-122002
on lease for a period of 11 months
 lease, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rs. One
Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) was paid by the
Respondent at the time of execution of lease
 deed as security and monthly rent was fixed
at Rs. 75,000/-
 to be paid in advance by the 7th day of every
month and also with a condition of 10%
increase in rent every 11 months
 Before taking the residential flat it was
agreed verbally between the parties that the
said flat was taken for a period of 5 years and
the same would be renewed every year
accordingly and on the assurance of the
respondent entire flat was renovated at the
cost of the Respondent by investing personal
funds
 That after the expire of the above said period
the said lease was again renewed on
2.08.2022 with the same terms and
conditions with increased monthly of Rs
85,000/- per month to be paid advance by 7 th
day of every month
 clearly mentioned that under clause 28 (f) of
the said lease deed in case of any breach of
the said lease deed the petitioner had to issue
a breach and cure and termination notice to
the respondent giving 21 days written notice
but instead of serving any notice the
petitioner and being lured by offers of higher
rent qua he expressed his non-willingness to
continue with the lease deed to the
respondent
 in August 2020, the Petitioner showed his
inability to continue with his lease quoting
that he was getting a higher rent qua which
the Respondent objected and requested not
to breach the terms of the lease deed and
promises prompting huge investment in the
property
 no bonafide requirement of the petitioner in
respect of the said property as he already in
occupancy of a residential building in the
urban area concerned and has not vacated
such building without sufficient cause as per
Section 13 sub clause 3 (i) of the Haryana
Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973
and therefore he cannot demand eviction of
the respondent as he is already in possession
of 2-3 properties and therefore this petition is
not maintainable
 huge sum of money in renovating the said
 premises and have made all the necessary
repairs after the assurance of repayment by
the petitioner but no amount has been paid
by the petitioner in this respect
 clause 32 of the lease deed to invoked
arbitration in case of dispute which has
already been invoked by the petitioner.
 according to Section 23 of the Haryana Urban
(Control of Rent and Eviction) Rules,1976
read with Rule 7 it is expressly mentioned in
the said act that the principles of the Civil
Procedure court will be applicable and
therefore the said petition is barred under the
provision of Order 7 Rule 11, Order 2 Rule 2,
Section 11 read with Section 151 of the Civil
Procedure Code

6. 17.05.2022 Application under Order 7 rule 11, order 2 rule 2,

r/w section 11 and section 151 CPC filed by
respondent

7. 17.05.2022 Application under Section 5 and Section 8 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 filed by the
respondent.

8. 17.05.2022 Order passed by court where reply has to be filed

by the petitioner and two applications for early
hearing has been filed by the petitioner.

Our Submissions:

 Lease deed signed b/w parties dated 04.04.2019 wherein the

Respondent has taken a residential apartment bearing No. I-92,
Ambience Lagoon Apartments, NH-8, Gurgaon-122002 on lease for a
period of 11 months
 Before taking the residential flat it was agreed verbally between the
parties that the said flat was taken for a period of 5 years and the
same would be renewed every year
 lease was again renewed on 2.08.2022 with the same terms and
conditions with increased monthly of Rs 85,000/- per month
 under clause 28 (f) of the said lease deed in case of any breach of the
said lease deed the petitioner had to issue a breach and cure and
termination notice to the respondent giving 21 days written notice and
no notice served.
 no bonafide requirement of the petitioner in respect of the said
property as he already in occupancy of a residential building in the
 urban area concerned and has not vacated such building without
sufficient cause as per Section 13 sub clause 3 (i) of the Haryana
Urban (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1973 and therefore he cannot
demand eviction of the respondent as he is already in possession of 2-
3 properties and therefore this petition is not maintainable
 huge sum of money in renovating the said premises and have made all
the necessary repairs after the assurance of repayment by the
petitioner
 clause 32 of the lease deed to invoked arbitration in case of dispute
which has already been invoked by the petitioner and award passed in
his favour.
 according to Section 23 of the Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and
Eviction) Rules,1976 read with Rule 7 it is expressly mentioned in the
said act that the principles of the Civil Procedure court will be
applicable and therefore the said petition is barred under the
provision of Order 7 Rule 11, Order 2 Rule 2, Section 11 read with
Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code
 The suit is therefore not maintainable as one civil remedy has already
been availed.
 All dispute arising out of the lease deed will be hit by clause 32 where
the said matter has to be referred to the arbitrator and this remedy
was already availed by the petitioner.
 In case of Lovely Obsessions Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon Vs. Sahara India
Commercial Corporation Ltd. Gurgaon 2012 the Hon’ble High
court of Punjab and Haryana has held:
8. A bare perusal of the aforesaid arbitration clause, contained in the
lease deed, reveals that every dispute arising out of or in connection
with the lease deed has to be referred to arbitration. The arbitration
clause is worded very widely and covers the dispute raised by the
plaintiff-petitioner in the suit. Application under Section 8 of the Act has,
therefore, been rightly allowed by the trial court. The arbitration clause
has not become defunct or inoperative merely because the lease period
under the lease deed has expired.