[2025:RJ-JP:29278] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Arbitration Application No. 126/2024 Subhash Chandra Bhoot S/o Shri Ram Swroop Bhoot, R/o Dund- lod Tehsil Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) ----Applicant Versus 1. Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Through Chair- man, Registered Office At Plot No. 6-2343, 2Nd Floor, Aana Sagar Circle Road, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan 2. Regional Manager, Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Near Peeru Singh Circle, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan 3. Branch Manager, Baroda Rajasthan Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Dundlod, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Applicant(s) : Mr.Karan Tibrewal For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rahul Lodha, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Order 31/07/2025 1. This application is filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘1996 Act’) for appointment of sole arbitrator. 2. Brief facts are that a lease deed was executed on 15.05.2019 by the applicant with the respondents leasing out ground floor of the premises located in Dundlod, District Jhunjhunu at a monthly rent of Rs.10,537/- for the first five years and the rent was subject to increase of 10% thereafter for the remaining lease period. The term of lease deed was for ten years. The applicant served a notice dated 03.06.2024 for appointment of the [2025:RJ-JP:29278] (2 of 4) [ARBAP-126/2024] arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute claiming damages and expenses for repair and maintenance caused to the demised premises by the respondents. Thereafter, the present application is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent raises a preliminary objection that the arbitration clause in the lease deed pertains only to damages to the demised premises in the specified eventualities mentioned there is no arbitration clause for seeking cost of repair and damages caused to the demised premises by the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Drolia vs. Durga Trading Corporation reported in 2021 (2) SCC 1, wherein it is held that the court can only see whether there is an arbitration agreement and whether the party who has applied under Section 11 of the 1996 Act is a party to such an agreement. 5. Arbitration clause is reproduced herebelow:- “If any time during the lease, the demised premises shall be destroyed or damaged by fire, earthquake, tempest or any other act of God or inevitable accident or by irresistible force so as to become unfit for habitation and use for the purpose of Lessee, then (provided the money payable under any policy of insurance shall not have become irrecoverable through any wilful act for default of the Lessee or its agent, servants or employees) without prejudice to the right of the Lessee under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to avoid this lease if the Lessee so elects to do, the rent hereby reserved or a fair and just [2025:RJ-JP:29278] (3 of 4) [ARBAP-126/2024] proportion thereof, according to the nature and extant of the damage sustained (to be ascertained, in case the parties differ by a reference to arbitration pursuant to the provisions of the “Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996” or any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof) shall be suspended and cease to be payable until the demised premises shall have been again rendered fit for habitation and use.” 6. From reading of the arbitration clause, it is forthcoming that in case of destruction or damage to demised premises by fire, earthquake, tempest or any other act of God or inevitable accident or by irresistible force and if lessee disputes fair and just proportion of rent according to the nature and extent of the damage sustained to the premises the matter can be referred to mediation and rent shall be suspended or cease to be payable until the demised premises were again rendered fit for habitation and use. 7. It is an admitted fact that the claim for repair and damages sought by the applicant relates to damage caused by the respondents and not to damage arising from eventualities mentioned in the arbitration clause. There is no arbitration clause in the lease deed for the dispute raised by the applicant in notice. 8. Reliance upon decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Vidya Drolia (supra) does not enhance the case of the applicant. The judgment relied upon is to the effect that under Section 11 the issue to be decided is the existence of an arbitration agreement and this would include that for dispute being [2025:RJ-JP:29278] (4 of 4) [ARBAP-126/2024] raised, there is an arbitration clause agreed between the parties or not. 9. Another relevant aspect is that the applicant has not even contended that the present dispute falls within the scope of arbitration clause. On the contrary, the applicant’s arguments rests on the premise that this court, at this stage, lacks jurisdiction to examine that the dispute is covered by arbitration clause. 10. In absence of valid arbitration clause encompassing the present dispute this application is found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed. (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Monika/88