Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. It is stated that on March 24, 2020, on account of the COVID- 19 pandemic, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India issued an order imposing a nationwide lockdown prohibiting, inter alia, social and cultural gatherings for a period of twenty-one days with effect from March 25, 2020. So, it is stated that the rented property became unfit for the purposes for which it was sub-let to the petitioner due to unprecedented circumstances on account of COVID- 19 pandemic which were beyond the control of the petitioner.

C) Thirdly, in holding that while COVID-19 would in all probability qualify as an 'Act of God', the subsequent lockdown was an act of man, as the decision to impose a lockdown was taken by a man. The said finding is unreasonable, since the nation-wide lockdown imposed in the month of March 2020 was unprecedented and could not have been anticipated by either of the parties at the time of entering into the sub-lease deed and is clearly an' Act of God'.

112. The finding of the learned Arbitrator on the „first issue‟ is as under:

"43. There was some debate whether the Covid-19 pandemic and the consequent lockdown imposed by the Government would qualify as an 'act of God'. While the Covid-19 pandemic would in all probability qualify as an 'act of God', there is considerable doubt as to whether the lockdown (or a combination of the Covid-19 pandemic and lockdown) would fall within the ambit of the expression 'act outstanding God'. Surely, the lockdown was an act of man. The Covid-19 pandemic by its very nature was and is a worldwide event. Some countries have imposed lockdown of various degrees of severity while others have not. The decision to impose a lockdown is taken by man. However, there is no need to render a conclusive finding on this aspect as, even if it is assumed that the Covid-19 pandemic and the lockdown constituted an 'act of God', since the other conditions stipulated in Clause 8B were not satisfied by the time the Claimant terminated the Sub Lease Deed on 12.06.2020, the result would still be the same: that the purported termination by the Respondent was not valid. For this reason, there is no necessity to discuss the decisions cited by the learned counsel on what is meant by an 'act of God' and whether Covid-19 by itself or in combination with the lockdown constituted an 'act of God'."

(Emphasis supplied)

113. Suffice to state, though the learned Arbitrator did hold that COVID- 19 pandemic would in all probability qualify as an „Act of God‟ but the subsequent imposition of lockdown was only an „Act of Man‟, he had justified the aforesaid finding by noting that while some countries had imposed lockdown of various degrees of severity, the other countries did not and moreover, the decision whether to impose lockdown or not, was surely taken by a man. Even otherwise, the learned Arbitrator was of the view that since the other conditions stipulated in Clause 8(B) were not satisfied by the time the respondent terminated the sub-lease deed, on June 12, 2020, the result would, still be the same, i.e., the purported termination by the petitioner would not be valid. In other words, it was held that the respondent having already validly terminated the sub-lease deed because of failure on the part of the petitioner to pay the rent for two consecutive months of April and May 2020, the termination effected by the petitioner (after issuance of default notice) was held to be invalid being not in accordance with Clause 8(B) which is the only provision in the sub-lease deed which prescribe the eventuality when the petitioner could have invoked the "force majeure" / "Act of God" stipulation. As per Clause 8(B), it could be only after 90 days and after giving notice of 30 days, which never happened, rather before it could happen, the respondent on failure on the part of the petitioner to pay the rent for two months had terminated the sub-lease deed. So the finding of the learned Arbitrator on this issue cannot be faulted.