JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. J. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K.K. Dey, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. By this application filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “1996 Act”), the petitioner prays for appointment of an Arbitrator in respect of a dispute raised by him through his counsel vide letter dated 08.08.2016. 3. The dispute as raised by the petitioner in the said letter is a claim made by the petitioner for interest @ 10% per annum on an amount of Rs.1,10,73,375/- for the period from 01.02.2014 to 07.07.2015 till realization. The aforesaid amount of Rs.1,10,73,375/- represents the amount being the difference of rent paid for the aforesaid period and the new rate of rent, which came to be fixed on 02.07.2015. 4. A lease deed was executed between the petitioner and the State Bank of India (for short, “SBI”) on 30.03.2009 in respect of a building owned by the petitioner. Amongst others, the lease agreement provided as follows:- “A. For first floor 15000 sq. ft. @ Rs.12.50 per sq. ft. per month of the above premises for a term of 10 years from the date of handing over of site to the lessee/Bank with a provision to review the rent at the end of 5 years not exceeding 25%. B. For 7500 sq. ft. of Ground Floor offered for parking space @ Rs.6.00 per sq. ft. per month of the above premises for a period of 10 years with a provision to review the rent at the end of 5 years not exceeding 25% w.e.f. the date of lessee/Bank vacating the same portion of the Ground floor premises. C. For 7500 sq. ft. Ground floor offered for Banking Hall @ Rs.9.25 per sq. ft. per month for a period of 10 years with a provision to review the rent at the end of 5 years not exceeding 25% w.e.f. 01/02/2009.” 5. Clause 22 of the said agreement also provided that the lessor would grant to the lessee a renewal lease of the demised premises on the Bank’s written request to be made before the expiration of the lease for such further period not exceeding 5(five) years on the same terms and conditions except increase of rent by mutual consent. 6. Clause 22 of the said agreement also provided that the lessor would grant to the lessee a renewal lease of the demised premises on the Bank’s written request to be made before the expiration of the lease for such further period not exceeding 5(five) years on the same terms and conditions except increase of rent by mutual consent. 6. From the agreement aforesaid, it is apparent that the lease was for the term of 10(ten) years with a provision of reviewing the rent at the end of 5(five) years not exceeding 25%. 7. On 10.12.2013, the petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent No.5 informing that the lease period would expire on 31.01.2014. It is stated therein that as the earlier lease agreement was not registered, the terms and conditions contained therein are null and void and, therefore, a fresh lease agreement w.e.f. 01.02.2014 may be arranged to be drawn at the revised rate of Rs.45/- per Sq. Ft. for both ground and first floors. Correspondence ensued between the parties following the said letter. In the meantime, the SBI continued to remain in possession of the demised premises and it continued to pay the rent as before. 8. Mr. Roy has submitted that in the letter dated 08.08.2016 demanding arbitration, in Paragraph 3, it has been wrongly noted that rent was not paid till 07.07.2015. 9. Subsequently, a lease agreement was entered into by and between the parties on 02.07.2015, to be operative w.e.f. 01.02.2014. Recital is made in the aforesaid lease agreement that the parties had entered into a fresh agreement notwithstanding the lease agreement made earlier and that the parties are subject to fresh terms and conditions and are not to be guided by previous lease agreement and the terms and conditions mentioned therein. It is also provided for in the said agreement that the previous agreement and the terms and conditions set forth therein are not applicable to any of the parties, as the said agreement and the terms and conditions set forth had expired and accordingly, the parties had entered into the lease agreement before expiry of the earlier deed of lease on the terms and conditions as appearing in the fresh agreement. 10. It will be appropriate to refer to the rent payable under the agreement dated 02.07.2015, which is as follows: “A. For 7500 sq. ft. 10. It will be appropriate to refer to the rent payable under the agreement dated 02.07.2015, which is as follows: “A. For 7500 sq. ft. of Ground floor offered for parking space @ Rs.20/- per sq. ft. per month of the above premises for a period of 10 years with a provision to review the rent at the end of 5 years not exceeding 25% w.e.f. 01/02/2014. B. For first floor 15000 sq. ft. @ Rs.40/- per sq. ft. per month of the above premises for a term of 10 years with a provision to review the rent at the end of 5 years not exceeding 25%. C. For 7500 sq. ft. Ground floor offered for Banking Hall @ Rs.40/- per sq. ft. per month for a period of 10 years with a provision to review the rent at the end of 5 years not exceeding 25% w.e.f. 01.02.2014.” 11. A bare look at the rent fixed would go to show that the rent was more than 25% of the rent that was payable under the agreement dated 30.03.2009 in respect of all the floors. 12. With the execution of the aforesaid agreement dated 02.07.2015, the SBI was liable to pay rent at the rate fixed under the agreement dated 02.07.2015 w.e.f. 01.02.2014. 13. It is already noted that the Bank had continued to pay the rent in terms of the earlier agreement dated 30.03.2009 during the interregnum period. The differential amount on account of enhanced rent, which is the arrear amount as claimed by the petitioner amounting to Rs.1,10,73,375/-, was paid by the SBI on 07.07.2015. The petitioner has raised the dispute claiming 10% interest on the aforesaid amount for the period 01.02.2014 to 07.07.2015. 14. In the lease agreement dated 02.07.2015, there was no stipulation that the SBI would be liable to pay interest on the differential amount of rent w.e.f. 01.02.2014. 15. In S.B.P. Company Vs. The petitioner has raised the dispute claiming 10% interest on the aforesaid amount for the period 01.02.2014 to 07.07.2015. 14. In the lease agreement dated 02.07.2015, there was no stipulation that the SBI would be liable to pay interest on the differential amount of rent w.e.f. 01.02.2014. 15. In S.B.P. Company Vs. Patel Engineering Limited & Anr., reported in (2005) 8 SCC 618 , the Supreme Court had laid down that while considering an application under Section 11 of the 1996 Act, the Chief Justice or his nominee can decide the question as to whether a claim is dead one or a long-barred claim was sought to be resurrected or whether the parties had concluded the transaction by recording satisfaction of their mutual rights and obligations or by receiving the final payment without objection. 16. Thus, while considering an application for appointment of Arbitrator, an obligation is cast on the Court to ascertain as to whether there is an arbitrable dispute between the parties. 17. On a consideration of the materials on record and the terms and conditions as finding place in the agreement dated 02.07.2015, I am of the considered opinion that the parties had executed a fresh agreement of lease recording their mutual rights and obligations and such agreement does not provide for payment of any interest by the SBI for rent fixed from 01.02.2015. Thus, no dispute had arisen under the agreement dated 02.07.2015. In absence of any arbitrable dispute, I am of the considered opinion that no case is made out for appointment of an arbitrator. 18. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.