Vijay And Company vs. Delhi Tourism And Transportion Development Corporation LTD

Facts

The petitioner, Vijay and Company, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim protection. The petitioner was granted a licence by the respondent, Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation Ltd., for a property in Shahadra, Karkardooma, Delhi, for two years from 01.01.2021 to 31.12.2022, with an annual licence fee of Rs. 1,03,99,991/-. The licence fee was payable monthly at Rs. 8,66,666/- plus GST. The petitioner, which operates a banquet hall, sought an extension of the licence period due to COVID-19 lockdowns impacting its ability to utilise the property. The respondent declined the extension via a termination letter dated 01.11.2022. The petitioner had accepted bookings until 01.03.2023, anticipating a favourable consideration of its extension request.

Held

The Court disposed of the petition with specific directions, effectively granting interim protection to the petitioner until 15.03.2023, subject to strict compliance with several conditions. The respondent was directed not to take coercive action for dispossession until 15.03.2023. The petitioner was obligated to clear all licence fee arrears until December 2022 within three days, deposit licence fees for January and February 2023 by the 10th of each respective month, and pay a pro-rata licence fee for the period 01.03.2023 to 15.03.2023 by 07.03.2023. Furthermore, the petitioner had to file an undertaking to hand over vacant possession by 15.03.2023 within three days, refrain from entering into further transactions for the property after 01.01.2023, and pay property tax and other statutory charges. The Court made it clear that failure to comply with any condition would entitle the respondent to immediate recovery of possession. The arrangement was primarily to obviate inconvenience to the public who had booked the property.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interim measures of protection to restrain the respondent from forcibly dispossessing it from the property and to stay the effect of the termination notice dated 01.11.2022, pending arbitration proceedings? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that it had invested significantly in the property and had accepted bookings until 01.03.2023, and therefore, sought to prevent coercive action and dispossession by the respondent. The petitioner relied on the need for interim relief to avoid inconvenience to the public who had made bookings. Respondent's arguments: The respondent contended that it had granted a three-month exemption from licence fee payment due to COVID-19. While opposing the reliefs, the respondent, on instructions, offered to refrain from coercive steps until 15.03.2023, subject to the petitioner clearing licence fee arrears, paying future licence fees, providing an undertaking to vacate, and paying property tax and other statutory charges. The respondent also stated that the petitioner had accepted bookings even after its extension request was rejected.