I have gone through the findings and as well as, provisions of clauses (supra) and am of the view that the Additional District Judge has misinterpreted the provisions of Clause 15 (F) and (G) by holding that all the rights were negotiated and finalized as per the terms and conditions of the contract or the agreement of lease or rent exclusively vested with the developer, i.e., respondent No.1 and respondents No.2 & 3 are owners, who only required to be informed about the same, whereas, Clause 15 of the collaboration agreement (supra) would show that allocation of parking space, as well as, setting up of kiosk, Advertisement board, electronic board, signage's antenna on roof and right to electronic media and shall be given to any company, with the consent of the owners and agreement shall be jointly executed by the owners and developers. Thus, in essence, it has to be a tripartite agreement. This Court vide order dated 02.12.2015, passed in FAO No.8047 of 2015 filed by the parking contractors, has disposed of the appeal with a liberty to the appellant to seek interim relief by invoking the provisions of Section 17 of 1996 Act and appointed Shri Arvind Kumar Goel, Retired Judge, of this Court as an Arbitrator. Copy of the order dated 2.12.2015 is annexed as Annexure A-6. The relevant portion of the same reads thus:-
