ARB.P. 1249/2026 Page 1 of 6 $~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010334122026 + ARB.P. 1249/2026 CHARU MALLA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ishu Bansal and Mr. Umang Bansal, Advocates. versus XERICA WIDENENING HORIZONS LLP & ORS. .....Respondents Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA O R D E R % 30.09.2026 1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) seeking appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of all disputes arising between the parties in relation to the registered Lease Deed dated 31.10.2018. 2. Notice in this petition was issued to the respondents vide the order dated 28.07.2026. 3. Vide the order dated 21.09.2026, the learned Joint Registrar (Judl.) has noted that the service report in respect of respondent no.1 and respondent no.2 by ordinary mode was received back with the report “No such company or office”. The service report of the respondent no.1 through ordinary mode at the third address was received back as unserved with the report “left”. Similarly for the respondent no.2 as well, the report was received unserved with the report “left”. The service report of respondent no.3 through ordinary mode is stated to be awaited. So far as the ordinary mode is concerned for respondent no.3 at the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 11:54:43 ARB.P. 1249/2026 Page 2 of 6 second address was received back unserved with the report “left”. 4. However, so far as the report of the Registry in respect of service through electronic mode by way of e-mail is concerned, vide the report dated 21.09.2026, the Registry has endorsed that the notice has been served through first e-mail Id, second e-mail ID as well as the third e-mail ID. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that though this does not form a part of the record, however an email communication has been received from the respondents vide the same e-mail address by the petitioner inter alia stating that the respondents are agreeable to vacate and hand over the subject matter of the property to the petitioner. 6. In view of the above as also keeping in regard that the notice through the e-mail by Registry of this Court has also been served, this Court deems it that the respondents have been served, even though the report of the ordinary mode has been reported back as “no such company or office” or “left”, electronic e-mail being one of the prescribed modes of service by this Court. 7. The petitioner has pleaded that a Lease Deed was executed for the demised property between the respondent no.1 and the previous owners on 31.10.2018. It is stated that on 28.06.2024 by way of a registered Lease Deed, the demised property was transferred by the previous owners in favour of the petitioner. It is stated that by way of an e-mail dated 25.07.2024, the respondents, who were the tenants in the demised property, were attorned and endorsed to the petitioner herein. It is also stated that vide the said mail, the previous owners had informed the respondents of the execution of the sale deed dated 28.06.2024 and had also advised to pay the rent directly to the petitioner. 8. It is stated that after a few months from November 2024, the respondent started defaulting in making payment of the entire monthly rent of the demised property. It is further stated that several notices and reminders were given by the petitioner to the respondents to comply with the terms of the Lease Deed This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 11:54:43 ARB.P. 1249/2026 Page 3 of 6 dated 31.10.2018. 9. Having met with failure during the entire period, a Cure Notice was issued by the petitioner upon the respondents on 31.03.2026 advising the respondents to cure all the defects and to pay the arrears of rent, maintenance cost and other charges. Even when such Cure Notice did not invoke any response, the petitioner claims to have issued a notice dated 02.05.2026 terminating the Lease Deed dated 31.10.2018 and required the respondents to hand over the physical possession of the said property alongwith payment of outstanding dues. That on 05.05.2026, the petitioner issued a formal notice under Section 21 of the Act invoking arbitration. 10. Though a reply is stated to have been received on 18.05.2026 stating that some discounts were availed on the basis of Covid-19 and others, however, so far as the invocation of arbitration was concerned, the respondents did not consent. The petitioner claims to have also sent a notice dated 30.05.2026 in response to the reply dated 18.05.2026 of the respondents calling upon the respondents to hand over the physical possession and reiterating the stand taken earlier. 11. It is further stated that the respondent no.1 sent an e-mail dated 14.06.2026 to the petitioner informing that respondent no.1 would vacate the demised property within three months starting from 01.05.2026. 12. The petitioner finding the respondent not complying with the demands of the notice earlier communicated, filed the present petition. 13. It is stated that the petitioner had filed a suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rents before the Delhi District Courts bearing CS(COMM.) No.232/2025 captioned “Charu Malla vs. M/s Xerica Winding Horizon LLP”. It is stated that upon service having been affected on the respondents, who were the defendants therein, an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) seeking This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 11:54:43 ARB.P. 1249/2026 Page 4 of 6 rejection of the plaint was filed by the respondent on 08.08.2022. It is ordered that the respondent/defendant itself had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC based on Section 8 of the Act and had referred to the arbitration clause bearing Clause no.20 of the Agreement. Post such filing of the application, the petitioner who was the plaintiff before the trial Court sought to withdraw the said suit with the liberty to take appropriate remedies in accordance with law, which was permitted by the learned trial Court, vide the said order. 14. It is in this context that the present petition was filed by the petitioner. 15. It is significant to note certain paragraphs and prayer clause of the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC filed by the respondent/defendant, which are reproduced hereunder: “4. It is pertinent to mention that as per Clause 20 i.e. Dispute resolution clause of lease deed dated 31.10.2018, any dispute which could not be resolved mutually shall be referred to the Arbitration Tribunal consisting of an Arbitrator to be appointed by the Lessor, at New Delhi. [Emphasis Supplied] 14. That the applicants by way of the present application seek the dismissal of the present suit and request this Hon'ble Court to appoint an Arbitrator under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for adjudicating the disputes arising out of the said lease deed dated 31.10.2018. [Emphasis Supplied] PRAYER A. Reject the Plaint of the Plaintiff against the Defendant LLP being barred by law as per the provisions of Order 7 rule 11 (d) CPC in view of the Clause 20 of Lease Deed agreement dated 31.10.2018,and; B. Appoint an independent, unbiased, impartial arbitrator in terms of the Clause 20 of Lease Deed Agreement dated 31.10.2018 for adjudicating the disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant LLP.” [Emphasis Supplied] 16. Having regard to the fact that it is the respondents themselves who have sought rejection of the suit in terms of Order VII Rule 11, CPC completely This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 11:54:43 ARB.P. 1249/2026 Page 5 of 6 predicated on Section 8 of the Act relating to Clause 20 of the Lease Agreement dated 31.10.2018, there does not seem to be any reason to doubt that the respondents themselves do not have any objection as to the existence of a valid Arbitration Agreement between the parties. It is trite and as settled by the Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Company Limited vs. Krish Spinning, (2024) 12 SCC 1, the Court appointing an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act is only to satisfy itself as to the existence of a valid Arbitration Agreement between the parties and there is no requirement to delve into merits. 17. In view of the above, and finding that the respondents themselves have relied upon such clause encapsulating the Arbitration Agreement, particularly in the application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC supported by an affidavit of the respondents, this Court is satisfied that there exists a valid Arbitration Agreement between the parties. 18. Having regard thereto and as a consequence, the petition is allowed and the following directions are passed: i) Ms. Nandita Rao, Senior Advocate (Mob. No.9999031918) is appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. ii) The arbitration will be held under the aegis and rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Sher Shah Road, New Delhi (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘DIAC’). iii) The remuneration of the learned Arbitrator shall be in terms of DIAC (Administrative Cost and Arbitrators’ Fees) Rules, 2018. iv) The learned Arbitrator is requested to furnish a declaration in terms of Section 12 of the Act prior to entering into the reference. v) It is made clear that all the rights and contentions of the parties, including as to the arbitrability of any of the claim, any other preliminary objection, as well as claims/counter-claims and merits This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 11:54:43 ARB.P. 1249/2026 Page 6 of 6 of the dispute of either of the parties, are left open for adjudication by the learned arbitrator. vi) The petitioner shall approach the learned Arbitrator within two weeks from today. 19. The petition is disposed of. TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J SEPTEMBER 30, 2026/anj This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 11:54:43