The Exclusive Commercial Court at Gurugram has dismissed a petition filed by Cinepolis India Private Limited seeking interim protection against eviction from its eight-screen multiplex at Modi Mall, Noida, after its nine-year lease with Bougainvillea Multiplex & Entertainment Center Private Limited expired on September 28, 2026.
Additional District Judge Sunil Chauhan held that Cinepolis failed to establish a prima facie case for continuation of its possession, observing that the balance of convenience and irreparable injury were also not in its favour.
The dispute arose after Bougainvillea demanded vacant possession of the multiplex, asserting that the lease had expired by efflux of time and that no mutually agreed renewal or fresh lease deed had been executed. Cinepolis, on the other hand, claimed that the original contractual arrangement, including the First Addendum dated September 22, 2017, gave it a unilateral option to renew the lease for further terms aggregating to 21 years.
The Court noted that although the First Addendum conferred a unilateral renewal option upon Cinepolis, the option had to be exercised through a clear and unconditional communication. It found that Cinepolis’s communications dated June 12, July 28 and September 2, 2026 sought negotiations and mutual finalisation of commercial terms rather than exercising the option to renew on the existing terms.
The Court further observed that Cinepolis first expressly communicated its exercise of the renewal option on October 7, 2026, through an email sent on October 9, 2026, i.e. after the lease had expired. It also found that no fresh registered lease deed had been executed and that no tenancy by holding over had arisen under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as the lessor had consistently refused to assent to continued occupation.
The Court, however, held that the arbitration agreement under Clause 11.9(ii) of the Lease Deed survived its expiry and that the contractual disputes between the parties could be referred to arbitration. It accordingly held the Section 9 petition maintainable.
Clarifying the scope of its decision, the Court observed that refusal of interim protection did not authorise the lessor to forcibly dispossess Cinepolis or adopt any unlawful means to recover possession. The Court also clarified that its observations were prima facie and would not influence the arbitral tribunal while deciding the disputes on merits.
The petition and the urgent application seeking interim protection were accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.