Lease renewal disputes are arbitrable where the clause covers renewal terms, rent, and unresolved disagreement between the parties.

The lease deed was construed as a whole, and the renewal clause was read with the initial term clause to hold that renewal could be sought by the lessee's written offer and that any disagreement on the renewed period or rent was covered by arbitration. Applying a liberal approach to arbitration clauses, the SC held that doubtful or debatable questions of arbitrability in commercial matters should ordinarily be referred to arbitration. Refusal by the lessor to renew the lease did not make the arbitration clause ineffective, and disputes over renewal, non-renewal, renewal period, and rent were held arbitrable. The rejection of the request for appointment of an arbitrator was therefore set aside and an arbitrator appointed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dispute arising from refusal to renew the lease was arbitrable and whether the application for appointment of an arbitrator ought to have been rejected.

Analysis: The lease deed had to be read as a whole. The renewal clause, read with the clause fixing the initial lease term, contemplated renewal on the lessee's written offer and provided for arbitration if the parties could not mutually agree on the renewed period or rent. The Court applied a liberal construction of the arbitration clause and the principle that, in commercial matters, doubtful or debatable questions of arbitrability should ordinarily be referred to arbitration. Refusal by the lessor to renew the lease did not render the arbitration clause otiose. Questions relating to renewal, non-renewal, the period of renewal, and the quantum of rent fell within the scope of arbitration.

Conclusion: The dispute was arbitrable and the rejection of the application for appointment of an arbitrator was erroneous; the order under challenge was set aside and an arbitrator appointed.

---