[Cites 17, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kanhaiya Lal Aswani vs Deepak Manohar Lal Chawala on 20 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5086
1 CR-747-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 20th OF JANUARY, 2026
CIVIL REVISION No. 747 of 2025
KANHAIYA LAL ASWANI
Versus
DEEPAK MANOHAR LAL CHAWALA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Avinash Zargar - Advocate for the Petitioner.
Shri Kapil Rohra - Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
ORDER
Reserved on 01.12.2025
Pronounced on 20.01.2026
The present Revision has been filed challenging the Order dated
17.06.2025 at the instance of the Tenant who is aggrieved by rejection of his
application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC whereby the Trial Court has
rejected the objection of the Petitioner raised by the said application that the
suit before the regular Civil Court is not maintainable and the same should be
filed or transferred to the Commercial Court.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued before
this Court that the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent has been
filed by the Plaintiff/Landlord on the assertion that the defendants are tenant
and sub-tenant respectively of Shop No.5 and the suit property being a shop,
therefore, it is a commercial property and used exclusively for commercial
purpose. Therefore, as per Section 2(c)(vii) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015,
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5086
2 CR-747-2025
the dispute comes within the definition of commercial dispute as per the Act
of 2015 and therefore, it is exclusively triable by the Commercial Court. It is
argued that the Trial Court has wrongly rejected the application of the
Petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC by overlooking the position that
the suit was not maintainable before the Trial Court and it was maintainable
only before the Commercial Court.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/tenant has relied on judgment of
High Court of Calcutta in C.S.No.3/2019 whereby the Calcutta High Court
has returned the Plaint to the Plaintiff in a similar matter of eviction of
Tenant from commercial property holding the suit to be maintainable only
before the Commercial Court. It is therefore, argued that in view of
definition of commercial dispute as per Section 2 (c)(vii) of the Act of 2017,
the suit was not maintainable before the regular Civil Court and it could only
have been filed before the Commercial Court.
4. Further reliance is made on a judgment of the Delhi High Court in
Kartar Singh Kochhar v. ICICI Bank Ltd. Reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Del
6987 wherein the Delhi High Court has held in similar terms.
5 . Per contra, it is contended by learned counsel for the
Respondent/Landlord that the suit is not filed for enforcement or breach of
any agreement relating to any immovable property used exclusively in trade
or commerce, but it is filed to seek eviction of the Tenant by exercising the
rights given to the Landlord and the grounds made available to the landlord
under Section 12 (1) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. Therefore, it is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5086
3 CR-747-2025
simplicitor an Eviction suit under M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961
and it cannot be stated to be a commercial dispute by any stretch of
imagination because the Respondent/Landlord is only exercising the rights to
get the Tenant evicted on grounds under the Accommodation Control Act
and nothing else. It is not a dispute relating to any agreement in respect of
immovable property used in Trade and Commerce. Therefore, it is argued
that the suit is maintainable and the Trial Court has rightly held the suit to be
maintainable and rightly rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of
the C.P.C. filed by the Petitioner/Tenants.
6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the rival parties and on perusal of
the record, it is seen that as per Section 2(c)(vii) of the Act of 2015,
following has been provided as one of the commercial disputes defined
under the Act of 2015:-
"(vii) agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively
in trade or commerce;"
7. In the present case, there are no allegations of breach of any
agreement or enforcement of terms of any agreement executed between the
parties. Neither any written agreement nor any oral agreement has been
pleaded by either of the parties which has been alleged to be violated by the
defendant or sought to be enforced by the Landlord. The entire plaint does
not relate to any clause of the oral or written agreement alleged to be
breached, either at the instance of the Plaintiff or at the instance of the
defendants who also have not made any pleading of breach of any oral or
written agreement between the parties.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5086
4 CR-747-2025
8. The same dispute was raised before the Calcutta High Court in the
case of Deepak Polymers (P) Ltd. v. Anchor Investments (P) Ltd. reported in
2021 SCC OnLine Cal 4323 and the Calcutta High Court in the aforesaid
case has decided the matter in great detail and held that once the suit arises
out of statutory right conferred by Section 108 of Transfer of Property Act
having no direct nexus with the lease agreement, therefore, once the
precondition of dispute emanating out of lease agreement being not satisfied,
the matter would not fall within the purview of Commercial Courts Act,
2015.
9. The Calcutta High Court in the aforesaid case held as under:-
"30. However, the cardinal question which has not been addressed but is pivotal to the
present adjudication is the expression "dispute" which precedes the expression "arising out
of" as appearing in Section 2(1)(c) of the 2015 Act. Reading sub-clause (vii) in conjunction
with the starting words of Clause (c), it is seen that the expression "agreements relating to
immovable property...." qualifies the term "dispute" arising out of such agreements.
31. A "dispute" can only be determined by the cause of action of the suit and not the
preceding backdrop. Even if Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act deals with
termination of the jural relationship of lessor and lessee, pre-supposing a prior lease
agreement, the bundle of facts comprising the cause of action of the suit is the sole
determinant of the "dispute" involved in the suit.
32. In the event the suits, in the present case, had been filed for recovery of possession
in respect of immovable property on the ground of forfeiture for contravention of any of the
terms and conditions of the respective agreements-in-question, it might have been argued
that the suits pertains to disputes "arising out of" such agreements.
33. However, the dispute itself, in the present case, arises out of refusal by the
defendants to comply with the notices issued by the lessor under Section 106 of
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which is based on a statutory right independent and
irrespective of any clause of the lease agreements.
34. Hence, the suits squarely arise out of a statutory right conferred by Section 106 of
the Transfer of Property Act, having no direct nexus with the lease agreements in respect of
the immovable properties concerned. Thus, the pre-condition of the applicability of Section
2(1)(c)(vii), that is, the emanation of the dispute out of the lease agreement, is not satisfied
in the present suits. Thus, the secondary question as to whether the immovable properties
are used exclusively in trade or commerce, pales into insignificance."
10. Similar is the present case in hand wherein the Landlord has filed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5086
5 CR-747-2025
eviction suit exercising the rights given to the Landlord and the grounds of
eviction given to the Landlord as per M.P. Accommodation Control Act,
1961 and has exercised the rights laid down in grounds under Section 12 (1)
(a) (b) (h) (o) of the said Act seeking eviction of tenant.
11. This issue has been decided by a coordinate Bench of this Court in
Mohit Sadana Vs. Vijay Kumar Goyal reported in 2025 (3) JLJ 147 , wherein
an exactly similar dispute has been decided and it has been held that a suit
for eviction would not be maintainable before a Commercial Court only
because the suit shop is being used for carrying out business or trade. The
judgment of Division Bench of Gujarat High Court has been considered by
the Coordinate Bench and it has been held as under:-
"9. In order to find out as to whether a dispute is a commercial dispute or
not, one has to conjointly read Sections 2(1)(c)(vii), Section 2(1)(i) and Section 12
of the Act. From a plain reading of aforesaid provisions, it is clear that only suits,
appeals or applications relating to a commercial dispute of a specified value are to
be tried by the Commercial Court. Merely because the suit shop is being used for
carrying out business or trade, the suit for eviction from the suit shop would not fall
within the definition of commercial dispute of specified value.
10. The Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Ujwala Raje
Gaekwar (Supra) has held that merely because the movable property in question is
going to be used or is being used exclusively in trade or commerce, the dispute does
not become a commercial dispute as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the Act. If the
object and purpose of establishment of Commercial Courts, Commercial Divisions
and Commercial Appellate Divisions of the High Court are considered, then it is
clear that the establishment of Commercial Courts had become necessary on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5086
6 CR-747-2025
account of inordinate delays and to ensure fast disposal of high value commercial
disputes to provide assurance to domestic and foreign investors.
11. ........................... It has also been held that a perusal of the
Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Commercial Courts Act Act, 2015 and the
various amendments to the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and insertion of new rules to
that Code applicable to suits of commercial disputes show that the said Act has been
enacted for the purpose of providing an early disposal of high value commercial
disputes. A purposive interpretation of the Statement of Objects and Reasons and
various amendments to the Civil Procedure Code leaves no room for doubt that the
provisions of the Act require to be strictly construed. If the provisions are given a
liberal interpretation, the object behind constitution of Commercial Division of
Courts viz. putting the matter on fast track and speedy resolution of commercial
disputes, will be defeated. If one takes a closer look at the Statement of Objects and
Reasons, words such as "early" and "speedy" have been incorporated and reiterated.
The object shall be fulfilled only if the provisions of the Act are interpreted in a
narrow sense and not hampered by the usual procedural delays plaguing our
traditional legal system. Thus, a dispute relating to immovable property per se may
not be a commercial dispute. But it becomes a commercial dispute, if it falls under
sub-clause (vii) of Section 2(1) (c) of the Commercial Courts Act viz. "the
agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce".
The conclusion arrived at herein, that in order to fall within Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of
the Commercial Courts Act, the immovable property must be "used exclusively" or
"being used exclusively" in trade or commerce, is agreed to. The words "used
exclusively in trade or commerce" are to be interpreted purposefully. The word
"used" denotes "actually used" and it cannot be either "ready for use" or "likely to
be used" or "to be used". It should be "actually used". Such a wide interpretation
would defeat the objects of the Act and the fast tracking procedure for deciding the
commercial disputes. In the present case, there is nothing on record to show that at
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5086
7 CR-747-2025
the time when the agreement to sell came to be executed in 2012, the property was
being exclusively used in trade and commerce so as to bring the dispute within the
ambit of sub-clause (vii) of Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act. Merely
because the property is likely to be used in relation to trade and commerce, the same
cannot be the ground to attract the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court.
12. Therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that merely because suit
shop is being used for running business, the question of eviction from said suit shop
would not become commercial dispute."
12. The coordinate bench has relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. K.S. Infraspace LLP and
Another, (2020) 15 SCC 585 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as
under:-
"13. The learned Senior Advocate for the appellant would however, contend that a
strict interpretation as in the case of taxing statutes would not be appropriate in the
instant case where the issue relates to jurisdiction. In that regard, the learned Senior
Advocate has referred to the Statement of Objects and Reasons with which the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is enacted so as to provide speedy disposal of high value
commercial disputes so as to create the positive image to the investors world about the
independent and responsive Indian legal system. Hence, he contends that a purposive
interpretation be made. It is contended that a wider purport and meaning is to be
assigned while entertaining the suit and considering the dispute to be a commercial
dispute. Having taken note of the submission we feel that the very purpose for which
the CC Act of 2015 has been enacted would be defeated if every other suit merely
because it is filed before the Commercial Court is entertained. This is for the reason
that the suits which are not actually relating to commercial dispute but being filed
merely because of the high value and with the intention of seeking early disposal would
only clog the system and block the way for the genuine commercial disputes which
may have to be entertained by the Commercial Courts as intended by the lawmakers. In
commercial disputes as defined a special procedure is provided for a class of litigation
and a strict procedure will have to be followed to entertain only that class of litigation in
that jurisdiction. If the same is strictly interpreted it is not as if those excluded will be
non-suited without any remedy. The excluded class of litigation will in any event be
entertained in the ordinary civil courts wherein the remedy has always existed.
14. In that view it is also necessary to carefully examine and entertain only disputes
which actually answers the definition "commercial disputes" as provided under the Act.
In the instant case, as already taken note neither the agreement between the parties
refers to the nature of the immovable property being exclusively used for trade or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5086
8 CR-747-2025
commerce as on the date of the agreement nor is there any pleading to that effect in the
plaint. Further the very relief sought in the suit is for execution of the mortgage deed
which is in the nature of specific performance of the terms of Memorandum of
Understanding without reference to nature of the use of the immovable property in trade
or commerce as on the date of the suit. Therefore, if all these aspects are kept in view,
we are of the opinion that in the present facts the High Court was justified in its
conclusion arrived through the order dated 1-3-2019 [K.S. Infraspace LLP v. Ambalal
Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Guj 1926] impugned herein. The
Commercial Court shall therefore return the plaint indicating a date for its presentation
before the Court having jurisdiction.
36. A perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Commercial Courts
Act, 2015 and the various amendments to the Civil Procedure Code and insertion of
new rules to the Code applicable to suits of commercial disputes show that it has been
enacted for the purpose of providing an early disposal of high value commercial
disputes. A purposive interpretation of the Statement of Objects and Reasons and
various amendments to the Civil Procedure Code leaves no room for doubt that the
provisions of the Act require to be strictly construed. If the provisions are given a
liberal interpretation, the object behind constitution of Commercial Division of Courts
viz. putting the matter on fast track and speedy resolution of commercial disputes, will
be defeated. If we take a closer look at the Statement of Objects and Reasons, words
such as "early" and "speedy" have been incorporated and reiterated. The object shall be
fulfilled only if the provisions of the Act are interpreted in a narrow sense and not
hampered by the usual procedural delays plaguing our traditional legal system."
13. Another coordinate bench of this Court in Bhopal Fracture
Hospital Vs. Savitri Devi Vijaywargiya (2024 (4) MPLJ 223) has also held
the same by referring to the statement of objection reasons of Commercial
Courts Act, the plain language of Section 2 as well as Section 12 of the said
Act, that relates to determination of specified value.
14. In view of the aforesaid, following the views taken by the
coordinate benches of this Court so also by the earlier view of Calcutta High
Court in the case of Deepak Polymers (supra) which has not been considered
in its later case of Maharshi Commerce (supra) cited by the learned counsel
for the Petitioner, so also the view taken by the Gujarat High Court, this
Court is of the considered opinion that in such matters of eviction where the
Landlord is exercising his right given to him to seek eviction on specified
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:5086
9 CR-747-2025
grounds under M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, the suit would not
fall within the definition of Commercial dispute in terms of Section 2(c) of
Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
15. Consequently, finding no ground to interfere in the present
Revision, the same is dismissed and the eviction suit is held maintainable
before the Civil Court.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
veni
