Section 9 interim protection continues until the arbitral tribunal decides the matter under Section 17.

The Petitioner, a lessee of commercial space at Pitampura Metro Station, sub-leased Shop No. PTP G-1 to the Respondent under a registered Sub-Lease Deed dated 25 September 2024, which contained an arbitration clause.

The Petitioner alleged rent and other dues of ₹32,53,502 as of 1 May 2026, together with continuing defaults, and stated that the Respondent remained in possession despite a termination notice.

The Petitioner sought interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, including restraint against creating third-party rights in the premises.

The Respondent did not appear despite service and was proceeded against ex parte.

By order dated 7 August 2026, the Court restrained the Respondent from creating third-party rights in the premises pending further consideration.

Whether the interim arrangement restraining the Respondent from creating third-party rights in the premises should continue pending consideration by an Arbitral Tribunal.

Whether the Section 9 petition should be disposed of with liberty for the Arbitral Tribunal to consider the interim measures under Section 17 of the Act.

The Court proceeded under Sections 9 and 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The order treated the Section 9 petition, upon constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal, as an application under Section 17 for the Tribunal’s consideration; the Tribunal may continue, vacate, or modify the interim arrangement, and is not bound by the Court’s directions.

No precedents or further legal tests are cited in the judgment.

The registered Sub-Lease Deed, evidence of possession, invoices, and payments made by the Respondent established prima facie the sub-lease relationship and its implementation; the alleged defaults remained unrebutted because the Respondent did not appear or dispute the material.

The Court had accordingly granted a limited restraint against creating third-party rights.

Rather than finally adjudicating the requested interim relief, it preserved that arrangement only until the Arbitral Tribunal could consider the matter, leaving the Tribunal free to determine the appropriate protection independently.

Upon constitution, the petition is to be treated as an application under Section 17 and placed before the Arbitral Tribunal, which may continue, vacate, or modify the interim arrangement.

The restraint granted on 7 August 2026 continues only until the Tribunal considers the matter and passes appropriate orders; it automatically stands vacated if the Petitioner fails to initiate arbitral proceedings within the stipulated period.

All rights and contentions were left open, with no opinion expressed on the merits.