ORDER :-By this application under Sections 11(4) and (5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to "the Act"), the applicant seeks appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes between the parties. 2. It is stated that the respondent is a Government Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The said Company had established one of its Unit at Ramachandrapuram in Medak District, which is at the outskirts of the City of Hyderabad. The company has also developed a township at Ramachandrapuram, but, however for want of marketing and other facilities for entertainment, sports etc., it has leased out an extent of 2 acres of land to the applicant for construction and running of a cinema theatre, a restaurant etc. The said extent of 2 acres is situated abutting the National Highway and adjacent to the residential quarters of the employees of the Respondent Company at Ramachandrapuram. Since the applicant agreed to develop the property by establishing the above structures, an agreement was entered on 25-8-1966 containing various terms. The lease was for a period of thirty years from the date of the lease at Rs.1,154/- per annum. 3. It is stated that pursuant to the said agreement, the petitioner had established a theatre, restaurant etc., and successfully ran throughout the lease period. However, before the lese period comes to an end, as the agreement contained renewal clause, the applicant requested the respondent to renew the lease for a further term of 30 years on reasonable rent. In fact, it is stated that hoping the lease would be renewed, the applicant has made additional constructions and installed air-cooling system, generator and replaced the entire seating, expanded the theatre, replaced the entire screen with a new one, changed the furniture and fixtures completely, and even the projector lens were changed for more clarity, by incurring huge amounts, and therefore, the applicant sought for renewal of the lease period. In response to the said request, the respondent constituted a committee to examine the terms of lease for renewal. But, according to the applicant in order to avoid renewal of the lease in favour of the applicant, the respondents have fixed up abnormal rent at Rs.2.50 lakhs per annum. The said quotation, according to the applicant, is 217 times higher than the original rent. But, according to the applicant in order to avoid renewal of the lease in favour of the applicant, the respondents have fixed up abnormal rent at Rs.2.50 lakhs per annum. The said quotation, according to the applicant, is 217 times higher than the original rent. It is also stated that the applicant came forward to develop the area when nobody came forward to take up the venture and invested huge sums of money, and at no point of time there was any complaint with reference to the running of the theatre as well as providing facilities to the residents of the quarters. The applicant, however, requested for renewal of the lease by fixing up the rent at Rs.18,360/- per annum. Further, it was even increased to Rs.25,000/-, as it was not agreed, the applicant sought for reference of the matter to the Engineering wing of the Public Works Department (PWD) for fixing up the rent. In fact, even earlier also, it was conveyed by the applicant to the respondent that if the respondent is not agreeable to the rent proposed by the applicant, the issue may be left open for decision of the Arbitrators. It is further stated that though similar lease granted to an auto-workshop in respect of Ac.1-00 land adjoining the cinema theatre, was renewed with a nominal increase while in the case of the applicant. The respondent was bent upon to evict him by not renewing the lease thereby discriminating the applicant vis-a-vis the other tenants of the respondent. 4. It is stated that finally on the ground that the respondent did not accept their proposal for payment of rent at Rs.2.50 lakhs Per annum, got the power disconnected. However, the applicant with the assistance of a generator continued to run the theatre. It is further stated that the respondent valued the assets of the applicant as per the terms of the agreement on the premise that there was no renewal, and has determined their valuation and issued a registered letter dated 17-8-2005 demanding payment of Rs.45,93,050-63 paise towards the building and equipment and initiated the proceedings even to evict the applicant under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupation) Act, 1971. It is stated that the applicant sought for reference to the arbitration by issuing a letter dated 20th September 2005. It is stated that the applicant sought for reference to the arbitration by issuing a letter dated 20th September 2005. As the respondent did not come forward for referring the matter to the arbitration, the applicant was constrained to file the present arbitration application. 5. A counter is filed on behalf of the respondent disputing and denying the allegations made by the applicant. The respondent admitted as to the establishment of its township at Ramachandrapuram and also leasing of the land in an extent of Ac.2-00 gts., land to the applicant for construction and running of cinema theatre with attached restaurant and other buildings at the cost of the lessee and the lease deed was executed on 25-8-1966. It is stated that as per the terms, the rent was fixed at Rs.1,154/- per annum, which comes to Rs.0.12 paise per square yard. The said lease period had expired by afflux of time by 24-8-1996. It is admitted that during the currency of the lease there was no disputes or differences between the parties. Before the expiry of the lease, the applicant sought for extension of the lease by a communication, dated 27-2-1996. The respondent accordingly constituted a committee on 1-6-1996, which fixed the rent at Rs.2.50 lakhs per annum. In fact, it is stated that though the department was of the opinion that a sum of Rs.5.00 lakhs was reasonable, but however, the respondent was willing to accept the annual rent of Rs.2.50 lakhs. But against the rent fixed by the committee, the applicant had offered an amount of Rs.18,360/- per annum. Thereafter, there was exchange of correspondence between the parties as there was no agreement and even the applicant sought for reference to the PWD for valuation, which was not agreed to by the respondent and finally the lease was terminated by issuing a notice, dated 29-9-1997 with effect from 31-10-1997, and the applicant was asked to handover the possession of the premises. Still the applicant did not handover the possession as sought for, but somehow the correspondence continued to be exchanged by letters and later the applicant offered Rs.25,000/- per annum, as rent for renewal of the lease for a further period of 30 years, which was not accepted by the respondent. 6. Still the applicant did not handover the possession as sought for, but somehow the correspondence continued to be exchanged by letters and later the applicant offered Rs.25,000/- per annum, as rent for renewal of the lease for a further period of 30 years, which was not accepted by the respondent. 6. As per the alternative clause contained under the terms of the agreement, as to the payment of the value of the assets, the respondent has started ascertaining the valuation of the super structures and other equipment. In fact, even the applicant also by his letter dated 10-1-2004 while offering Rs.25,000/- per annum as rent conveyed that if the said rent is not acceptable for the respondent, the respondent may take over possession of the theatre and pay the present market value of the building and equipment, furniture, fixtures etc. Thereafter, with reference to the valuation there was correspondence between the parties, and though the applicant was asked to furnish the details as to the valuation of the building as well as the equipment as per its books, as the applicant did not responded positively, the committee constituted by the respondent has gone ahead and determined the value of the building at Rs.24,10,002/-, while the value of the equipment, furniture and fixtures etc., was valued at Rs.1,86, 142-50, and the same was communicated to the applicant. The applicant, however, claimed an amount of Rs.1.00 crore with reference to the valuation of the structures. It is stated that since the applicant continued to be in possession of the premises even after the expiry of the lease period, the respondent claimed damages and also sought for handing over of the vacant possession. Since the applicant did not handover the possession of the premises, proceedings were initiated to evict the applicant under the Public Premises (Vacation of Unauthorized Occupation) Act, 1971 where the Estate Officer of the respondent had issued a notice dated 19-9-2005. It is only thereafter, by receiving the notice from the Estate Officer, the applicant has come up with the present arbitration application. 7. It is stated that the applicant never disputed as to the valuation of the superstructures, though claimed that the value is of Rs.1.00 crore and in fact never sought for any reference to the arbitration with reference to the valuation, though a communication dated 16-5-2005 sent by the respondent was received on 20-5-2005. 7. It is stated that the applicant never disputed as to the valuation of the superstructures, though claimed that the value is of Rs.1.00 crore and in fact never sought for any reference to the arbitration with reference to the valuation, though a communication dated 16-5-2005 sent by the respondent was received on 20-5-2005. According to the respondent since the lease period had expired long back i.e., on 24-8-1996, and thereafter as there was no agreement between the parties as per the terms of the lease for renewal, nothing survives, and in fact the lease was terminated, and though the applicant requested the respondent to take over the possession, but, however, did not handover the possession. Therefore, there is no dispute for adjudication between the parties, as to the renewal of the lease is concerned. Further, the lease period had expired in the year 1996 and the present application is filed after a gap of nine years. Therefore, nothing survives and the present application is even barred by limitation, as the applicant did not approach this Court, though sought for a reference to arbitration as early as in the year 1996-97. 8. The learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri B. V. Subbaiah, contended that when once the lease entered into between the parties, provides for renewal of the lease for a further period, and if the terms of the lease are not agreed to, the said issue is a dispute with reference to the renewal, which is required to be referred for arbitration, as it is a dispute to be adjudicated. It is contended by the learned Counsel that it is not open to one of the parties to make an unreasonable claim with reference to the stipulation of rent for renewing the lease, which would frustrate the very tenn of renewal. 9. The learned Counsel for the applicant relied upon various decisions, viz., S. G. Ins. Co. v. Planters Airways, AIR 1975 SC 415 ; Meda Narsimhulu v. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Delhi, 1999 (3) ALD 422 = AIR 1999 AP 345 ; Pressteels and Fabrications Pvt. Ltd. v. Chief Engineer, Electricity, 1999 (5) ALD 459 = 2000 (1) Raj. 243 (A.P.); Asia Resorts Ltd. v. Usha Breco Ltd., AIR 2002 SC 55 ; Conart Engineers Ltd. v. Shamrock Industrial Co. Ltd., 2002 (3) Arb. 243 (A.P.); Asia Resorts Ltd. v. Usha Breco Ltd., AIR 2002 SC 55 ; Conart Engineers Ltd. v. Shamrock Industrial Co. Ltd., 2002 (3) Arb. LR 40 (Born.); Pandit Munshi Ram and Associates (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority, 2002 (1) Raj. 594 (Del.); Ramesh Chander v. Jagdish Chander, 2002 (1) Raj. 604 (Del.); Rajeev Traders, Tarnaka v. G.M South Central Railway, 2002 (5) ALD 69 = 2003 (1) Arb. LR 624 (A.P.), wherein while considering the term mutually agreed, contained in the renewal clause that the terms must be reasonable and cannot be unreasonable, which would frustrate the very renewal clause. It is also contended that even after the claim by one of the party is unreasonable, the Court has got power to adjudicate as to the reasonableness of the claim. Therefore, the learned Counsel contended that this is a fit case, where Arbitrator is required, in order to examine the reasonableness of the claim of the respondent, and therefore, sought for appointment of an Arbitrator. 10. The learned Counsel for the respondent, Sri S. V. Bhatt, on the other hand, sought to dismiss the application as the dispute claimed to be a non-existing dispute, and the claim is a stale claim as well as barred by limitation. According to the learned Counsel, the original lease of 1966 had expired by expiry of 30 years period in 1996. Though both the parties were anxious for the renewal of the lease, as there was no mutual agreement, as is provided under the terms of the agreement for renewal, the same did not materialize and therefore, the lease was terminated by issuing a notice by the respondent. In fact, the applicant also requested the respondent to take over the possession of the property, if the rent of Rs.25,000/- per annum is not acceptable. In spite of such a reply given by the applicant to the respondent, and even after stopping of the screening of the pictures, the applicant did not deliver the possession of the property, which is illegal. In spite of such a reply given by the applicant to the respondent, and even after stopping of the screening of the pictures, the applicant did not deliver the possession of the property, which is illegal. It is also pointed out by the learned Counsel that the notice finally issued seeking reference to the arbitration is only for renewal of the licence under the terms, and not with reference to the valuation of the superstructures and other equipment, and therefore, no claim can be made for the first time in the present application without seeking any reference for arbitration in respect of the said issue. 11. With reference to the claim of fixing up the terms of the renewal, according to the learned Counsel, since the lease period had expired long back, the lease was terminated, and no dispute exists for reference or for fixing up the terms of the lease for renewal. It is also stated that it is not open to the applicant to seek a reference for fixing up the terms of the renewal of the lease after lapse of 9 years after the expiry of the lease, that too even after requesting the respondent to take over the possession of the premises. The claim is also barred by limitation since the applicant did not approach the Court within a period of three years from the date of notice seeking reference to the arbitration, which was issued in the year 1996-97. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the arbitration application. 12. From the rival contentions the issue to be considered is whether there exists a dispute between the parties, which is required to be adjudicated by an Arbitrator and therefore an Arbitrator is required to be appointed or not ? 13. It is an admitted fact that the land of the Respondent Company in an extent of 2 acres in Sy.Nos.615 and 616 of Ramachandrapuram was leased out to the applicant for construction of a cinema theatre, restaurant etc., for the benefit of the residents of the township established by the Respondent Company. The annual rent fixed under the terms of the agreement, dated 25-8-1966 was Rs.1,154/- per annum, and as per the terms, the applicant has developed the land by putting up the superstructures and the theatre was run successfully till the completion of the lease period, which expired on 24-8-1996. The annual rent fixed under the terms of the agreement, dated 25-8-1966 was Rs.1,154/- per annum, and as per the terms, the applicant has developed the land by putting up the superstructures and the theatre was run successfully till the completion of the lease period, which expired on 24-8-1996. Since a renewal clause is provided under the terms of the lease agreement, the applicant has initiated proceedings for getting the lease renewed. In response to his request for renewal, the Respondent Company constituted a committee, which went into the matter, proposed to fix up the annual rental value of Rs.2.50 lakhs and accordingly conveyed the same to the applicant. The applicant was not willing to pay the rent as proposed by the respondent, but gave a counter offer of Rs.18,360/- per annum. Since the respondent was not agreeable for the rent proposed by the applicant, correspondence was exchanged between the parties, and in the process, the respondent has even terminated the lease by a notice dated 29-9-1997 with effect from 31-10-1997. Thereafter, it seems that the applicant had again gave enhanced offer of Rs.25,000/- per annum, and if the said offer is not acceptable to the respondent, the respondent was asked to take over the possession of the premises with all the structures and asked to pay the market value of the structures, equipment etc., which were put up by the applicant. Thereafter, the respondent again constituted a committee, which issued notice to the applicant for production of the necessary particulars in respect of the valuation of the assets. As the applicant did not co-operate, the committee constituted by the respondent had gone ahead and ascertained the value of the structures as well as the equipment and has even communicated the same to the applicant. The applicant, on the other hand, made a claim as to the valuation of the assets at Rs.1.00 crore. But, however, when a communication was given by the respondent with reference to the valuation ascertained by the department, the applicant did not respond with reference to the valuation. 14. The applicant, on the other hand, made a claim as to the valuation of the assets at Rs.1.00 crore. But, however, when a communication was given by the respondent with reference to the valuation ascertained by the department, the applicant did not respond with reference to the valuation. 14. It is stated that since the applicant did not handover the possession, as was proposed by it, the respondent has even got the power connection removed, and the applicant though ran the theatre for sometime with the assistance of the generator, but later closed the screening of the pictures and the same was even conveyed to the licensing authority. Even thereafter also the applicant did not handover the premises. Therefore, the respondent initiated proceedings for eviction of the applicant under the provisions of the Public Premises (Vacation of Unauthorised Occupation) Act, 1971 and when a notice was issued by the Estate Officer of the Respondent Company, a notice was issued seeking reference to arbitration only with reference to the fixing up of the terms of the lease by seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. The same is contested by the respondent saying that since the original lease period had expired long time and as there was no agreement between the parties for renewal of the lease, no dispute exists between the parties for seeking adjudication by an Arbitrator. The stand of the respondent is that the renewal terms of the lease cannot be fixed by the Arbitrator. The same have to be agreed to between the parties. It is also the case of the respondent that with reference to the valuation, the respondent never disputed nor any reference to the arbitration was sought for, but, however, for the first time in the application before this Court, the applicant raised a dispute and sought for reference to the arbitration, which could not be allowed, since the said claim is not in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as the applicant did not follow the procedure contemplated under law. 15. 15. Before proceeding further, it would be proper to refer to the clause mentioned in the agreement, which provides for renewal of the lease, which is provided under Clause-3 of the agreement, and reads as under : "That the lease is for a period of 30 years, and that on the expiry of the lease period the lease may be extended for such further period under the terms and conditions to be then agreed upon mutually between the parties. In the absence of any such agreement between the parties regarding the extension of a further period; the lease shall be terminated at the end of the lease period, when the lessor shall take over the Cinema House and all the other connected buildings and equipment at a cost to be assessed by the Company at the then current market value of the same for the second hand buildings." 16. A perusal of the above clause clearly shows that the lease may be extended for such a further period under the terms and conditions to be then agreed upon mutually between the parties. In the absence of the agreement between the parties, the lease shall be terminated at the end of the lease period, and the lessor shall take over the Cinema Hall and other connected buildings and equipments at a cost to be assessed by the Company as per the market value of the same for a second hand building. Now, admittedly, there was no agreement between the parties for renewal of the lease. Therefore the lease was terminated. The applicant, in fact, has conveyed that rent offered by him at the rate of Rs.25,000/- per annum was not agreeable, the respondent may take over the possession of the premises and pay the present market value of the assets. Thereafter, though the applicant had run the theatre for sometime, the respondent did not agree for continuing and finally the respondent got the electrical power disconnected. Even thereafter also the applicant had run the theatre with the assistance of the generator for sometime and then only it was closed. When the respondent proposed to evict, then only the applicant has rushed with the arbitration application. 17. Even thereafter also the applicant had run the theatre with the assistance of the generator for sometime and then only it was closed. When the respondent proposed to evict, then only the applicant has rushed with the arbitration application. 17. The learned Counsel relied upon various decisions, wherein it was held that where there is a provision for fixing up the rent mutually agreed, the claim between the parties must be reasonable and if there is unreasonable or abnormal claim by any of the parties, the Court has got power to review and even correct the said action of the unreasonable party. But all these decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel relate to the regular civil proceedings, whereafter entering into the renewal, one of the party claimed corrections as to the unreasonable claim. But in the present case, according to the applicant, the claim made by the respondent is unreasonable and abnormal, and in fact, though sought for reference to the arbitration, immediately after the expiry of the original lease period, but the applicant did not pursue the same by approaching the Court, and on the other hand, continued to be in possession and even expressed his desire to give up possession to the respondent stating that the respondent may take over the possession. Further, when once the lease was terminated by the respondent as early as on 31-10-1997, as per the terms of the lease agreement there cannot be any further dispute for fixing up the terms of renewal of the terminated lease. If the applicant was diligent in prosecuting his claims, he ought to have approached the Court as early as in the year 1996 or 1997, and not in the year 2005. The applicant never disputed or denied the termination of the lease by the respondent Company. After the termination of the lease, nothing survives, and in fact, the termination is also as contemplated under the terms of the renewal clause mentioned in the agreement and extracted above. Though the learned Counsel for the applicant relied upon number of judgments, since those judgments are not relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the claim whether the applicant has got a live claim as on the date of approaching this Court, and since it is held that the claim is a stale claim, and even barred by limitation, it is not necessary to refer to those judgments. 18. Though the respondent contended that since the lease period expired, the terms of lease are not available to seek reference for arbitration, but the said contention may not be sustainable, since the dispute that arise out of the terms of the agreement even though the period of lease expired, but the dispute has to be adjudicated in terms of the clause contained under the terms of the lease deed. Therefore, as far as the valuation is concerned, if there is a dispute between the parties, and if the applicant seeks reference for arbitration, the respondent is obligated to and it cannot deny the claim of the applicant. But, however, in the present case, no such claim was made in the notice dated 19-7-2005 issued by the applicant, except seeking appointment of an Arbitrator for determination of the terms of lease, more particularly, the period and the rent, which cannot be done at this stage after a long lapse of not only the original lease period, but also after termination of the lease by the respondent on 31-10-1997. The claim of the applicant is accordingly held as a stale claim, apart from barred by limitation, since the applicant did not approach this Court within a period of three years from the date of original claim seeking reference to Arbitrator that was made in the year 1996-97. Therefore, the present claim is nothing but reopening of the claim, which was already closed by the applicant himself by offering the respondent to take possession of the structures and pay the present value of the structures as well as the equipment. 19. Under the above circumstances, the claim made by the applicants is clearly a stale claim, which does not require any further adjudication. 20. The arbitration application is accordingly dismissed as devoid of any merit. No costs.