- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12540 CMP No. 65 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CIVIL MISC. PETITION NO. 65 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SEEMA GOEL SOLE PROPRIETOR OF BERKOWITS HAIR AND SKIN CLINIC WIFE OF MR ANIL GOEL AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT N-14, KAILASH COLONY NEW DELHI-110 048. CARRYING ON BUSINESS AT FIRST FLOOR, PLOT NO.220 DOMLUR 2ND STAGE, 2ND PHASE BENGALURU-560 071. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRADEEP NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RISHAB D. DESAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S SUMITRA VENTURES LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP REGISTERED UNDER THE LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP ACT, 2008 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT THE CAPITAL, B-513, G BLOCK BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI-400 051. REPRESENTED BY ITS DESIGNATED PARTNERS RAJESH NANJUNDAIAH Digitally signed by SUNITHA K S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12540 CMP No. 65 of 2024 BEGUR, TANSHA RAJESH BEGUR AND FARZAD FREDDY BAGLI …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHREYAS JAYASIMHA, ADVOCATE) THIS CIVIL MISC. PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.11(5) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 PRAYING TO APPOINT A SOLE ARBITRATOR TO ARBITRATE ANY AND ALL DISPUTES AND DIFFERENCES THAT HAVE ARISEN BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE LEASE OF THE DEMISED PREMISES, AS CONTAINED IN THE LEASE DEED DATED 24TH JANUARY, 2022, AS PER THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT CONTAINED IN CLAUSE 12 THEREIN (PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE B). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI ORAL ORDER This Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the appointment of an Arbitrator, to resolve the dispute arising between the petitioner and the respondent in terms of Clause 12 of the lease deed dated 24.01.2022 vide Annexure –B. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this petition are as follows: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12540 CMP No. 65 of 2024 The petitioner entered into a registered lease deed dated 24.01.2022 for exclusive commercial use of the demised premises with one M.C. Nitin for 9 years. The lease deed does not permit the lessor to terminate the lease deed at will or for no cause. Clause 10 of the lease deed governs the termination of the lease which is restricted to causes and procedures stipulated therein. Clause 12 of the lease deed contains the Arbitration agreement between the parties, which contemplates “any dispute or difference between the parties”, to be referred to an Arbitration by a sole Arbitrator. Mr. M.C. Nitin sold the demised premises to Yernool Prasad Vijay Deepak (Mr. Deepak). Mr. Deepak stepped into the shoes of Mr. Nitin as a lessor of the demised premises. The petitioner started paying the rent to Mr. Deepak from the date of his purchase. Mr. Deepak sold the demised premises to the respondent and informed the petitioner of the same via e- mail. The e-mail contains a ‘letter of attornment’ dated 09.08.2023, which was duly executed by Mr. Deepak and the respondent, binding the respondent to the terms of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12540 CMP No. 65 of 2024 the lease deed. The parties to the petition exchanged emails while expressly acknowledging the lease deed etc. Since, the respondent stepped into the shoes of a lessor, the petitioner started paying rent every month to the respondent. 3. The respondent, acting in the breach of the lease deed, sent an illegal termination notice dated 18.08.2023 to the petitioner, claiming to immediately terminate the lease deed. The only reason mentioned in the notice for termination of the lease deed was the purported non-execution of the letter of attornment dated 09.08.2023 by the petitioner. The respondent threatened the petitioner that it would put its lock on the demised premises to dispossess her from the same. Despite having received the illegal notice, petitioner continued to pay rent to the respondent as per the registered lease deed. To protect her leasehold rights under the lease deed petitioner was constrained to seek interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12540 CMP No. 65 of 2024 instituted a commercial Arbitration application before the 85th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Commercial Court) Bengaluru, which came to be numbered as Com.A.A.No.348/2023 against the respondent. The Commercial Court granted an ad-interim order. 4. The respondent sent another illegal notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 demanding to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises. The petitioner responded to the notice, denying the contents of the notice and denying the respondent’s request to arbitrate outside the lease deed. The petitioner sent an arbitration notice invoking Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, to resolve the dispute about the lease deed as per clause 12 of the lease deed. The respondent did not reply to the arbitration notice. Learned Commercial Court allowed the Com.A.A.No.348/2023 vide order dated 29.11.2023. The respondent disrupted the petitioner’s peaceful possession over the demised premises. Hence, this petition. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12540 CMP No. 65 of 2024 5. The respondents filed a statement of objections raising various grounds for rejection of the petition. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and respondent. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a relationship of the lessor and lessee in between the petitioner and respondent. The respondent has no right to terminate the tenancy. He submits that the respondent tried to dispossess the petitioner from the demised premises. The petitioner sought an interim prayer under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act in Com.A.A.No.348/2023. The said application was allowed. 8. Despite the interim order, the respondent disobeyed the interim order. The petitioner issued an arbitration notice invoking the arbitration Clause, as per Clause 12 of the lease deed dated 24.01.2022. The - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12540 CMP No. 65 of 2024 respondent did not reply to the said arbitration notice. Hence, prays to allow the petition. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that, if the Court comes to a conclusion that an arbitration to be appointed, all the contentions of the parties be kept open, and he proposes the name of Justice Sri. Ram Mohan Reddy, retired Judge, High Court of Karnataka, be appointed as an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute arising between the parties. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits no objection to appoint Justice Sri. Ram Mohan Reddy, retired Judge, High Court of Karnataka as an Arbitrator. 11. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 12. The point, that arises for consideration is: “Whether the petitioner has made out a ground to appoint an Arbitrator as per Clause 12 of the lease deed dated 24.01.2022?” - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12540 CMP No. 65 of 2024 13. It is not disputed that, the petitioner entered into a lease deed for exclusive commercial use of demised premises with M.C. Nitin for 9 years. Mr. Nitin sold the demised premises to one, Mr. Deepak. He has stepped into the shoes of Mr. Nitin as a lessor on the demised premises. Deepak sold the demised premises to the respondent. The respondent informed the petitioner via e- mail containing a ‘letter of attornment’ dated 09.08.2023 calling upon the petitioner to accept the respondent as a lessor and pay the rent. The respondent issued a notice dated 18.08.2023 terminating the lease deed on the ground of non-execution of the letter of attornment dated 09.08.2023 by the petitioner and threatened to put its lock on the demised premises to dispossess the petitioner from the same. 14. The petitioner approached the Commercial Court in Com.A.A.No.348/2023 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the 85th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge (Commercial - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12540 CMP No. 65 of 2024 Court), Bengaluru. The commercial Court granted an ad- interim order restraining the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the demised premises, until the disposal of the application. The learned commercial Court allowed the application filed under Section 9 of the Act. Meanwhile, the respondent sent a notice terminating the tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1888 and demanding to hand over the vacant possession of the demised premises. The petitioner replied to the said termination notice denying its contents. The petitioner issued an arbitration notice under Section 21 of the Act, 1996 to resolve the dispute as per clause 12 of the lease deed. The respondent did not reply to the arbitration notice. 15. I have perused the lease deed. Clause No.12 provides an arbitration Clause, which reads as under: 12) DISPUTE RESOLUTION: a) In the event of any dispute or difference between the Parties to this Agreement in respect of or concerning or connected with the interpretation or implementation of this - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12540 CMP No. 65 of 2024 Agreement or arising out of this Agreement, such dispute or difference shall be referred to Sole Arbitrator. The arbitration shall be held in Bangalore, India. The decision of Arbitrator shall be binding and conclusive upon the Parties and may be enforced in any Court of competent jurisdiction.” 16. Admittedly, the dispute arose between the petitioner and respondent and there is an arbitration Clause in the registered lease deed dated 24.01.2022. Both parties have submitted to appoint Hon’ble Justice Sri. Ram Mohan Reddy, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka as an Arbitrator. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner has made out a ground to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator. In view of the above discussion, I answer point for consideration in the affirmative. 17. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12540 CMP No. 65 of 2024 The Hon’ble Justice Sri. Ram Mohan Reddy, Former Judge, High Court of Karnataka is appointed as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties in terms of Clause 12 of the lease deed dated 24.01.2022 as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation act, 1996. The office is directed to communicate this Order to the learned Arbitrator, and the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bengaluru. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. SD/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17