SAT PAL, J. ( 1 ) BY this order I am disposing of both IAs bearing No-9297/89 and 9302/89 as the point rafsed in both the applications is identical. IA 9297/89ins. No. 3405/89 has been filed on behalf of Kesar Enterprises Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the Company) and IA9302/ 89 in S. No. 3408/89 has been filed on behalf of Petroleum and Petro Chemical Purveyors (hereinafter referred to as the Firm) under Section 41 Schedule II of Arbitration Act read with Section 151 Civil Procedure Code and in both the applications it has been prayed that proceedings under Section 4 and 7 of the Public Premises Act pending before the Estate Officer, Northern Railway DRM Office, New Delhi be stayed. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the Company in terms of agreements dated 6. 1. 62 and 3. 9. 80 with the President of India acting through the Divisional Supdt. of Northern Railway was allowed as the licencee the use of contiguous pieces of land admeasuring about 15352. 5 sq. mtrs adjacent to railway station. On this land the Company constructed storage lank, godown and other accomodation and depols for receiving stores and dealing vegetable oil and kerosen oil, petroleum and petroleum products. The licence fee during period 1955-60 was Rs. 0. 48 per sq. yard per annum and it was increased to Rs. 9/ -per sq. yard in the year 1980. w. e. f. 1st March. 1982 the licence fee was increased to Rs. 68. 31p and was further increased to Rs. 119. 96p per sqr. meeter 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. 00 per sq. meter per year for covered area and Rs. 30. 00 per sqr. meter per year for uncovered area for the period 5. 12. 8210 31. 3. 86. Vide letter datcd27. 10. 86,lhclicencefeewasrevisedtors. 60/ - per sq. meter per year for both covered as well as uncovered area plus 10% increase every year. Vidclcltcr26. 10. 87. 1helicencefecwas fixed @rs. 78. 00 per sqr. mtr. per year for the period 1. 4. 86 to 31. 3. 88. Since the Company did not deposit the licence fee at the enhanced rates, the licence was terminated by the respondents on 12. 5. Vidclcltcr26. 10. 87. 1helicencefecwas fixed @rs. 78. 00 per sqr. mtr. per year for the period 1. 4. 86 to 31. 3. 88. Since the Company did not deposit the licence fee at the enhanced rates, the licence was terminated by the respondents on 12. 5. 88 and thereafter proceedings under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupant) Act. 1971 (in short P. P. Act) were initiated. Hence the company filed the petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act and alongwith it filed IA No-9297/89 for stay of the proceedings initialed under the P. P. Act. ( 3 ) IN the case of Firm, it was allowed by the respondents as the licencee for the use of land admeasuring 6956 sq. rntr. situated at Rohtak Road, Shakur Basti, Delhi on Rs. 37,424/ -per annumas the annual licence fee in June, 1978. Vide letter dated II. 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 oldrateofrs. 37,424. 00 per annum for the period 10. 6. 821031. 12. 82. From 1. 1. 83 the licence fee was fixed at Rs. 60. 00 per sq. mtr. per year for covered area and Rs. 30/ - per sq. mtr. per year for uncovered area. Vide letter dated 27. 10. 86, the licence fee was fixed at Rs. 60. 00 per sq. mtr. per year for both covered and uncovered area plus 10% increase every year for the period 1. 1. 83 to31. 3. 86. Videletterdated 19. 4. 87. thelicence fee was revised to Rs. 78. 00 per sq. mtr. per year from 1. 4. 86 onwards. Since the firm failed to deposit the amount of licence fee at the enhanced rate, the licence was terminated by the respondents on 12. 5. 88 and proceedings under the P. P. Act were initiated against the firm. Accordingly, the firm filed the petition bearing No. 3408/89 under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act and alongwith the petition filed an IA No-9302/89. ( 4 ) MR. 5. 88 and proceedings under the P. P. Act were initiated against the firm. Accordingly, the firm filed the petition bearing No. 3408/89 under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act and alongwith the petition filed an IA No-9302/89. ( 4 ) MR. Aggarwal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Company and the Firm submitted that the increase in the rate of licence fee by the respondents was arbitrary and unreasonable and as such the disputes between the parties on this aspect of the matter be referred to the arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the agreement between the parties. He further submilted that during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings. Company and the Firm were willing to pay the annual licence fees (a) Rs. 32. 70p per sqr. mtr. per annum in terms of the order dated 27. 10. 89 passed by a learnes Single Judge of this Court in an other similar case titled as M/s. Batra Brothers VS. UOI and Ors, bearing Suit No. 2950a/88. He also submitted that the Estate Officer under the P. P. Act could not go into the question whether the rates of licence fee enhanced by the respondents were reasonable and this question could only be gone into by the arbitrator in terms of the arbitration clause. ( 5 ) MR. Kapur. learned counsel apearing on behalf of the respondents, however, submitted that the respondents had already initiated proceedings under the P. P. Act as the Company and the Firm were in clears of rent payable in respect of the premises which were in their occupation and which admittedly were public premises and the Company and the Firm had been participating in the said proceedings throughout. Learned counsel drew my attention to Section 15 of the P. P. Act and submitted that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of the arrears of rent/damages payable under Section 7 of the said Act. He submilted that even though the licence deed contained an Arbitration clause which constituted the arbitration agreement between the parties, the procceding under Section 20 of the Arbitrationact on the question of evietion or payment of rent or damages in respect of public premises were not maintainable inview of the bar contained in Section 15 of the P. P. Act. He submilted that even though the licence deed contained an Arbitration clause which constituted the arbitration agreement between the parties, the procceding under Section 20 of the Arbitrationact on the question of evietion or payment of rent or damages 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 contention learned counsel placed reliance on an order dated 16. 10. 90passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, in the case of M/s. C. J. International Hotels Ltd. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee, in IA 295790 in S. No. 1193/90. ( 6 ) I have given my thoughful consideration to the submissions made,by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. Admittedly, the premises in question republic premises and assuch the provisions of P. P. Act are applicable to the present cases. It is true that the agreement between the parties contains an arbitration clause and in terms of the said clause, the dispute between the 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/damages payable by the Company and the Firm, petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act is not maintainable as the Arbitrator will have no jurisdiction in the matter of disputes falling under Section 15 of the P. P. Act and the arrears of rent/damages squarely fall under Section 15 of the said Act, lam fully in agreement with the observations of learned Single Judge of this Court in his order dated 16. 10. 90 in the case of C. J. International Hotels (supra) that on a petition filed under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, the proceedings before the Estate Officer under the P. P. act cannot be stayed in view of the bar contained in Section 15 of the P. P. Act. It may be pointed out here that the aforesaidbservations are based on a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Marketing Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank, J. T. 1990 (3) SC417. It may be pointed out here that the aforesaidbservations are based on a judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Marketing Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank, J. T. 1990 (3) SC417. ( 7 ) I also do not find any merit in the contention urged by learned senior counsel for the Company and the Firm that since the question whether the rates enhanced by the respondents were reasonable or not cannot be gone into by the Estate Officer, disputes between the parlies should be referred to Arbitration. In this connection a reference may be made to Section 7 of 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 such time and in such instalments as may be specified in the order. " In terms of this Section the arrears of rent payable means the rent payable in accordance with law that is in terms of the agreement between the parties read with circulars, guidliens issued by the respondent-railways and statutory provisions. Here a reference may be made to a judgement of the Supreme Court reported in the case of New Delhi Municipal Committee VS. Kalu Ram, AIR 1976 SC 1637 wherein it was held that the word payable in Section 7 of the P. P. Act. in the context in which occurs, means "legally recovereable". ( 8 ) IN view ofthe above discussion, both the applications are dismissed. The parties are. however, left to bear their own costs.