( 1 ) BY this application, under Section 9 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act 1996, the petitioners have claimed interim injunction to restrain respondents from creating third party interest in the parking lot attached to the Samrat Cinema during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings for which a notice has already been served by the petitioners. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY the facts relevant for deciding this application are that there is a parking site attached with the cinema. This site was given on the license basis to the petitioners on monthly license fee of Rs. 11,500/- vide an agreement dated 6. 12. 2004 Duration of the contract, as stated in the agreement was five years from the date of handing over of the site. The contract was to be renewed every year with enhanced monthly license fee by 5%, subject to satisfactory completion every year of the contract. Even after five years, contract could be extended by the Commissioner, MCD at his discretion for a period of one year. The site was released in favour of the petitioners on the license basis since petitioners bid was found to be the highest. Petitioners were to charge prescribed parking rate. e Rs. 5/- for first two hours and Rs. 3/- for additional hour for car parking. MCD issued a public notice, revising the rate of parking as Rs. 10/- for first 10 hours and Rs. 20/- beyond 10 hours and after revising the rates of parking, by a general public notice dated 30. 10. 2006, MCD asked parking contractors to enhance license fee by 50% of the existing monthly license fee during the remaining contract period and execute a fresh agreement with the MCD and charge parking rates as per the new rates. MCD also made it clear that in case the acceptance of the proposal was not sent by the parking contractors, it would be presumed that the offer was not acceptable and the further action as necessary will be taken. To this notice the petitioners replied that the petitioners were running a Cinema and the parking site was attached to the Cinema. The enhanced parking rates would not effectively enhance the parking charges since the parking at the petitioner's site has to be in accordance with the show timings. The petitioner was to charge Rs. To this notice the petitioners replied that the petitioners were running a Cinema and the parking site was attached to the Cinema. The enhanced parking rates would not effectively enhance the parking charges since the parking at the petitioner's site has to be in accordance with the show timings. The petitioner was to charge Rs. 10/- per car per show since show runs from 3 to 4 hours and the parking of the vehicle is for 3 to 4 hours. The petitioners cannot charge parking rates applicable to the other sites where the rates are prescribed for first 10 hours and more. In case of petitioner, no vehicle can be parked for more than 3-4 hours. Petitioners, however, stated they were ready to enhance the license fee if petitioners were permitted to charge parking rate applicable to the premium tourist parking sites like Appu Ghar, Lotus Temple and opposite to Delite Cinema where parking rates about:blankwere Rs. 25/- per entry. Since petitioners did not agree to increase the license fee, the site was re notified and fresh tenders were invited in respect of site whereupon the petitioners invoked arbitration clause and filed present application. ( 3 ) IT is undisputed that there is an arbitration clause in the agreement. It is also undisputed that as per arbitration clause the disputes between the parties are to be referred to the arbitrator. It is also undisputed that the site in question is attached to the Cinema and at the time of auction of the cinema this was shown as parking site which could be exclusively used for the Cinema parking. Petitioners have placed on record letters allegedly written by DDA showing that the petitioners can use the site as free parking site at the time when cinema was initially constructed. However, with the passage of time neither petitioners provided free parking to the cinema goers nor the site is given to the petitioners free of charges. ( 4 ) THE site attached with the cinema has to be used exclusively for the parking of the cinema goers. The vehicles of the cinema goers are normally parked for show period. After show is over, site is to be used for next lot of show goers. The new parking rates prescribed by the MCD practically do not increase the parking rates for the petitioners. The vehicles of the cinema goers are normally parked for show period. After show is over, site is to be used for next lot of show goers. The new parking rates prescribed by the MCD practically do not increase the parking rates for the petitioners. ( 5 ) UNDER these circumstances, the contention of the petitioners that the new rates were not applicable on petitioners and petitioner could not increase parking charges has force. Petitioner has good prima facia case and balance of convenience also lies in favour of applicants. I, therefore, allow this application. The respondents are restrained from inducting new contractor into the parking site during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings. The petitioners shall, however, continue to pay the license fee as agreed and shall continue to abide by all terms and conditions of the contract. MCD would continue to have a right to proportionately increase the license fee under the existing contract. MCD shall also have right to increase the license fee if it is found that petitioners have started charging more parking charges from the cinema goers.