JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Ms. Swarupama Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Nipun Singh and Sri Sushil Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Tarun Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 5.3.2024 passed by the Commercial Court, Bareilly whereby the application filed by the appellant in pending proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the 'Act') has been rejected. 3. The application under Section 9 of the Act was filed inter-alia seeking decree of permanent prohibitory injunction from forcibly evicting the appellant from the demised premises and not to interfere in the peaceful possession of the appellant over the demised premises under suit. During the pendency of the said application, interim application was filed inter-alia indicating that as the representative of the respondents has misbehaved with the officers of the appellant, the appellant has decided not to deal with such a person and vacate the demised premises and has informed this fact to the respondents and as the respondents have not agreed for the same and are causing hindrance in the removal of goods and articles by the appellant from the demised premises, therefore, they may be permitted to remove the goods from the premises. 4. The Commercial Court, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that in proceedings under Section 9 of the Act, the permission to terminate the tenancy/lease deeds cannot be granted as the same would be against the interest of the respondents and that without payment of the outstanding amount of Rs.49,40,574/-, tenancy cannot be terminated and the decision taken being unilateral, rejected the application. 5. In the present appeal, vehement submission has been made regarding the right of the appellant to remove the goods from the premises. However, during the course of submission, it has been submitted that the appellant is prepared to deposit a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- and the respondents be directed to permit the appellant to peacefully remove the goods from the premises. Further submission has been made that the appellant may be permitted to proceed with the arbitration. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents after seeking instructions from the respondents, has agreed to the said suggestion/proposal given by the appellant, however, has indicated that the amount to be deposited be disbursed to the respondents. 7. Further submission has been made that the appellant may be permitted to proceed with the arbitration. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents after seeking instructions from the respondents, has agreed to the said suggestion/proposal given by the appellant, however, has indicated that the amount to be deposited be disbursed to the respondents. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein the Commercial Court has rejected the application mainly on account of amount being outstanding, and now the appellant has agreed to deposit 50% of the said amount, and the respondents have agreed to accept the said suggestion given by the counsel for the appellant, we deem it appropriate to direct the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- within a period of two weeks from today. Immediately, on deposit of the said amount with the Commercial Court, Bareilly, the respondents would permit the appellant to remove its goods from the premises in question/would not cause any sort of hindrance in the removal of the goods by the appellant from the premises in question. 8. The amount on being deposited, be disbursed to the respondents, on filing an undertaking that in case, ultimately it is found that the respondents are not entitled to the said amount, the same would be refunded back with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of disbursal till the date of payment to the appellant. The appellant, would be free to take steps for referring the dispute to arbitration. 9. The appeal stands disposed of.