Mr. Jaspal Singh, J. ( 1 ) BY this order I am disposing of both las bearing No. 9297/89 and 9302/89 as the point raised in both the applications is identical. IA9297/89 in S. No. 3405/89 has been filed on behalf of Kesar Enterprises Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the Company) and IA 9302/89 in S. No. 3408/89 has been filed on behalf of Petroleum and Petro Chemical Purveyors (hereinafter referred teas thefirm) under Section 41 Schedule II of Arbitration Act read with Section 151 CPCand in both the applications it has been prayed that proceedings under Sections 4and 7 of the Public Premises Act pending before the Estate Officer, Northernrailway DRM Office, New Delhi be stayed: ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the Company in terms ofagreements dated 6. 1. 62 and 3. 9. 80 with the President of India acting through thedivisional Supdt. of Northern Railway was allowed as the licencee the Use ofcontiguous pieces of land admeasuring about 15352. 5 sq. mtrs adjacent to Railwaystation. On this land the Company constructed storage tank, godown and otheraccommodation and depots for receiving stores and dealing vegetable oil andkerosen oil, petroleum and petroleum products. The licence fee during period1955-60 was Rs 0. 48 per sq. yard per annum and it Was increased to Rs. 9. 00 persq. yard in the year 1980. w. e. f. 1/03/1982 the licence fee was increased to Rs. 68. 31 p and was further increased to Rs. 119. 96p per sqr. meter per year w. e. f. 5. 12. 82. But later on by letter dated 11. 3. 86 the licence fee was fixed at Rs. 60. 00persq. meter per year for covered area and Rs. 30. 00 per sqr. meter per year for uncovered area for the period 5. 12. 82 to 31. 3. 86. Vide letter dated 27. 10. 86, the licencefee was revised to Rs. 60. 00 per sq. meter per year for both covered as well asuncovered area plus 10% increase every year. Vide letter 26. 10. 87, the licence feewasfixed @ Rs. 78. 00persqr. mtr. per year for the period 1. 4. 86 to 31. 3. 88. Since thecompany did not deposit the license fee at the enhanced rates, the licence wasterminated by the respondents on 12. 5. Vide letter 26. 10. 87, the licence feewasfixed @ Rs. 78. 00persqr. mtr. per year for the period 1. 4. 86 to 31. 3. 88. Since thecompany did not deposit the license fee at the enhanced rates, the licence wasterminated by the respondents on 12. 5. 88 and thereafter proceedings under Publicpremises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act, 1971 (in short P. P. Act) wereinitiated. Hence the company filed the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitrationact and alongwith it filed IA No. 9297/89 forstay of the proceedings initiateds initiated under the P. P. Act. ( 3 ) IN the case of Firm, it was allowed by the respondents as the licencee for theuse of land admeasuring 6956 sq. mtr. situated at Rohtak Road, Shakur Basti, Delhion Rs. 37,424. 00 per annum as the annual licence fee in June, 1978. Vide letter dated11. 3. 81, the licence fee was increased to Rs. 91. 26p per sq. met. per year w. e. f. 1. 1. 81. Vide letter dated 11. 2. 86 it was fixed at the old rate of Rs. 37,424. 00 per annum for theperiod 10. 6. 82 to 31. 12. 82. From 1. 1. 83 the licence fee was fixed at Rs. 60. 00 persq. mtr. per year for covered area and Rs. 30. 00 per sq. mtr. per year for uncoveredarea. Vide letterdated 27. 10. 86, the licence fee was fixed at Rs. 60. 00 per sq. mtr. peryear for both covered and uncovered area plus 10% increase every year for theperiod 1. 1. 83 to 31. 3. 86. Vide letterdated 19. 4. 87, the licence fee was revised to Rs. 78. 00per sq. mtr. per year from 1. 4. 86 onwards. Since the firm failed to deposit theamount of licence fee at the enhanced rate, the licence was terminated by therespondents on 12. 5. 88 and proceedings under the P. P. Act were initiated againstthe firm. Accordingly, the firm filed the petition bearing No. 3408/89 undersection 20 of the Arbitration Act and alongwith the petition filed an IA No. 93 ( 4 ) MR. 5. 88 and proceedings under the P. P. Act were initiated againstthe firm. Accordingly, the firm filed the petition bearing No. 3408/89 undersection 20 of the Arbitration Act and alongwith the petition filed an IA No. 93 ( 4 ) MR. Aggarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Companyand the Firm submitted that the increase in the rate of licence fee by the respondentswas arbitrary and unreasonable and as such the disputes between the parties onthis aspect of the matter be referred to the arbitration in terms of the arbitrationclause contained in the agreement between the parties. He further submitted thatduring the pendency of the arbitration proceedings. Company and the Firm werewilling to pay the annual licence fees @ Rs. 32. 70p per sqr. mtr. per annum in termsof the order dated 27. 10. 89 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in an othersimilar case titled as M/5. Batra Brothers v. UOI and Ors, bearing Suit No. 2950a/88. He also submitted that the Estate Officer under the P. P. Act could not go into thequestion whether the rates of licence fee enhanced by the respondents werereasonable and this question could only begone into by the arbitrator in terms ofthe arbitration clause. ( 5 ) MR. Kapur, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents,however, submitted that the respondents had already initiated proceedings underthe P. P. Act as the Company and the Firm were in arrears of rent payable in respectof the premises which were in their occupation and which admittedly were publicpremises and the Company and the Firm had been participating in the saidproceedings throughout. Learned Counsel drew my attention to Section 15 of thep. P. Act and submitted that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain any suit orproceeding in respect of the arrears of rent/damages payable under Section 7 of thesaid Act. He submitted that even though the licence deed contained an Arbitrationclause which constituted the arbitration agreement between the parties, the proceedings under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act on the question of eviction orpayment of rent or dmages in respect of public premises were not maintainable inview of the bar contained in Section 15 of the P. P. Act. In support of his contentionlearned Counsel placed reliance on an order dated 16. 10. In support of his contentionlearned Counsel placed reliance on an order dated 16. 10. 90 passed by a learnedsingle Judge of this Court in the case of M/s. C. J. International Hotels Ltd. v. Newdelhi Municipal Committee, in IA 2957/90 in S. No. l 193/90. ( 6 ) I have given my thoughful consideration to the submissions made bylearned Counsel for the parties and have perused the records. Admittedly, thepremises in question are public premises and as such the provisions of P. P. Act areapplicable to the present cases. It is true that the agreement between the partiescontains an arbitration clause and in terms of the said clause, the dispute betweenthe parties can be referred to arbitration. But since the proceedings under the P. P. Act have already been initiated in respect of payment of arrears of rent/damagespayable by the Company and the Firm, petition under Section 20 of the Arbitrationact is not maintainable as the Arbitrator will have no jurisdiction in the matter ofdisputes falling under Section 15 of the P. P. Act and the arrears of rent/damagessquarely fall under Section-15 of the said Act; I am fully in agreement with theobservations of learned Single Judge of this Court in his order dated 16. 10. 90 in thecase of C. J. International Hotels (supra) that on a petition filed under Section 20 ofthe Arbitration Act, the proceedings before the Estate Officer under the P. P. actcannot be stayed in view of the bar contained in Section 15 of the P. P. Act. It maybe pointed out here that the aforesaid observations are based on a judgment of thesupreme Court in the case of Ashok Marketing Ltd. v. Panjab National Bunk. J. T. 1990 (3)SC417. ( 7 ) I also do not find any merit in the contention urged by learned Seniorcounsel for the Company and the Firm that since the question whether the ratesenhanced by the respondents were reasonable or not cannot be gone into by theestate Officer, disputes between the parlies should be referred to Arbitration. Inthis connection a reteri nce may be made tosection7of the P. P. Act which stipulates"where any person is in arrears of rent payable in respect of any public premises,the Estate Officer may, by order, require that person to pay the same within suchtime and in such instalments as may be specified in the order. Inthis connection a reteri nce may be made tosection7of the P. P. Act which stipulates"where any person is in arrears of rent payable in respect of any public premises,the Estate Officer may, by order, require that person to pay the same within suchtime and in such instalments as may be specified in the order. " in terms of thissection the arrears of rent payable means the rent payable in accordance with lawthat is in terms of the agreement between the parties read with circulars, guidlinesissued by the respondent-railways and statutory provisions. Here a reference maybe made to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in the case of New Delhimunicipal Committee v. Kalu Ram, AIR 1976 SC 1637 wherein it was held that theword payable insection7ofthep. P. Act,in the context in whichoccurs,means"legally recoverable". In view of the above discussion, both the applications are dismissed. Theparties are, however, left to bear their own costs. S. No. 3408 and 3405/89list these suits for directions in the category of short matters on 11/04/1994.