OCD-44 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/301/2026 HAVILDER N MOHAN RAO (RETIRED) VS THE COMMAND HOSPITAL, KOLKATA BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 8th July, 2026. Appearance Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, Adv. Mr. Abhrajit Roy Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Sohan Kumar, Adv. …for the petitioner Mr. Siddharta Lahiri, Sr. Adv. Ms. Anamika Pandey, Adv. Ms. Rishika Pandey, Adv. …for the respondent 1. Reply to the affidavit-in-opposition is taken on record. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties, which have arisen out of the lease and license agreement dated 24th July, 2024. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is a retired army personnel and that, pursuant to a bidding process, the respondent had entered into a lease and license agreement dated 24.07.2024 with the petitioner in respect of a commercial shop situated within the premises of the Command Hospital, Calcutta, for a period of 11 months, along with a renewal clause. It is submitted that, pursuant to the said agreement, the petitioner started a fruit and juice 2 stall in the name and style of M/s. Raj Cafe and Canteen from the said premises. Upon expiry of the term, the petitioner continued to carry on the said activity from the said premises. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent directed the petitioner to vacate the premises on the ground that renovation work was to be undertaken. It is submitted that the respondent provided alternate accommodation in lieu of the existing premises, which the petitioner has been occupying. Since the petitioner was threatened with eviction, they approached the Commercial Court at Alipore by filing Miscellaneous Arbitration Commercial No. 56 of 2025 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim protection from eviction. Vide order dated 03.12.2025, the Learned Court at Alipore restrained the respondent from evicting the petitioner from the said premises. 5. The petitioner submits that disputes and differences arose when the petitioner was not shifted to the renovated premises. Accordingly, the petitioner invoked the arbitration agreement by issuing a Section 21 notice dated 27.02.2026 and proposed the name of an Arbitrator. The respondent received the said notice but did not concur with the arbitrator proposed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that, after completion of the renovation work, the respondent issued a public advertisement dated 31.03.2026 inviting applications for allotment of the renovated premises. Thereafter, vide letter dated 13.04.2026, the respondent directed the petitioner to vacate the temporary accommodation that had been allotted in lieu of the earlier allotment. Consequently, the petitioner once again approached the Commercial 3 Court at Alipore and obtained interim protection vide order dated 17.04.2026. 6. Learned Counsel for the respondent does not dispute the lease and license agreement entered into between the parties, nor does she dispute the arbitration clause contained in the said agreement. The scope of Section 11 is limited to examining whether there exists a valid agreement between the parties containing a valid arbitration clause. Bearing in mind that the lease and license agreement was duly entered into between the parties and that it contains an arbitration clause, this Court is of the prima facie view that this is a fit case for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 7. In view of the above, this Court appoints Mr. Rudraman Bhattacharyya, Senior Advocate (Mob: 9830731277), as Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. 8. The learned Arbitrator shall, prior to entering upon the reference, make the necessary disclosure in terms of Section 12(5) of the Act. 9. The learned Sole Arbitrator shall be entitled to fix his remuneration in accordance with the Fourth Schedule to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, unless otherwise agreed by the parties. 10. All questions, including those relating to limitation, maintainability, admissibility of claims, jurisdiction, and merits, are expressly kept open to be decided by the learned Sole Arbitrator. 4 11. The Petitioner shall communicate a copy of this order to the learned Sole Arbitrator forthwith for necessary action. 12. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed of. (GAURANG KANTH, J.) S. Mandi/R.Bhar