OC-22 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA COMMERCIAL DIVISION ORIGINAL SIDE AP-COM/493/2026 BADAL CHANDRA MONDAL ALIAS BADAL MONDAL AND ORS VS AMRIT FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED BEFORE: The Hon’ble JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH Date : 13th July, 2026. Appearance: Mr. Anirban Roy, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Roy, Adv. Mr. Debjit Basu, Adv. …for the petitioner Mr. Rajarshi Dutta, Adv. Mr. Soumen Mohanty, Adv. Ms. Kishwar Syed, Adv. Mr. Ayaan Ahmed, Adv. …for the respondent The Court: The petitioner has preferred the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes and differences alleged to have arisen between the parties out of and in connection with the unregistered Lease Deed dated 12.03.2015. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners are the absolute owners of the shop room measuring 898 sq. ft. on the ground floor of the premises situated at Sushila Niketan, Holding No. 17/727, AF-377, Krishnapur Hanapara, P.S. Baguiati, Kolkata – 700102. According to the 2 petitioner, the said premises was being used for commercial purposes with a view to letting out the same. The petitioner had entered into a lease deed dated 12.03.2015 with the respondent whereby the petitioner was a lessor and the respondent was inducted as lessee. Under the terms of the lease, the respondent was granted tenancy in respect of the said premises for a period of three years commencing from 17.04.2015 with an option for renewal for two successive terms of three years each. The monthly rent was fixed at Rs.70,000/- together with maintenance charges of Rs.700/- per month towards use, upkeep and cleaning of the common toilet and passage. The respondent had deposited a sum of Rs.2,10,000/- as security equivalently to three months’ rent. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent initially paid the rent for a limited period and thereafter became irregular and ultimately defaulted in payment of the lease rent, maintenance charges and other contractual dues. According to the petitioner, despite repeated requests and reminders, the respondent neither regularised the outstanding payment nor vacated the premises, while continuing to occupy the same without paying any consideration. The petitioner contends that since the monthly rent payable was Rs.70,000/-, the tenancy stands excluded from the provision of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act by virtue of Section 3 thereof and the relationship between the parties is governed by the contractual terms of the Lease Deed. Learned Counsel for the respondent states that the respondent admits the lease deed entered into between the parties. He does not dispute the agreement as well as the arbitration clause contained in the said agreement. 3 The parties have mutually consented to the appointment of an Arbitrator. Learned Counsel for both the parties have jointly suggested the name of Mr. Anuj Singh, Advocate as the learned sole Arbitrator to enter upon the reference in respect of the disputes between the parties. In view of the said suggestion, this Court appoints Mr. Anuj Singh, Advocate (Mobile No. 9830202752) as the learned sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. The appointment of the learned sole Arbitrator shall be subject to compliance with Section 12(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The learned sole Arbitrator shall be entitled to fix the remuneration in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Act. A copy of this order shall be communicated by the petitioner to the learned sole Arbitrator for necessary action. It is clarified that all questions relating to the arbitrability of the disputes, the admissibility of the claims, limitation, jurisdiction, and all other issues are left open to be urged before the learned Sole Arbitrator, who shall decide the same in accordance with law. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed of. (GAURANG KANTH, J.) R.Bhar