The court held that claims involving arrears of rent and mesne profits constitute a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, necessitating judicial consideration and trial.

ORDER :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioner/defendant No.6 is at the doors of this Court calling in question an order dated 23-10-2024 passed by the LXXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru on I.A.No.III in Comm.O.S.No.788 of 2024 rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC seeking return of the plaint on the score that the Commercial Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.

2. Heard Sri Skanda Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K.Arun Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. Sans details, facts are as follows: -

The respondent is the landlord and the petitioner is the sub-tenant of defendant No.1. The dispute arose between the two with regard to payment of rent or claim for arrears of rent. Therefore, the respondent institutes commercial O.S.No.788 of 2024 seeking possession and recovery of certain amount. The issue in the lis does not pertain to merit of the claim of the plaintiff or the defence of the defendants. Before the concerned Court, defendants 6 and 7 file an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC seeking return of the plaint on the score that it did not satisfy the rigours of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 for institution of commercial suit. It ought to have been a regular suit before the Court having jurisdiction and not the commercial Court. Objections are filed. The concerned Court rejects the application filed by defendants 6 and 7 in the following order inter alia:

“…. …. ….

I have gone through the provisions of Sec.42 of the KCF and SV Act. I have also perused the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the defendant Nos.6 and 7. The principles laid down in these decisions are well founded. But, these decisions do not come to the aid of these contesting defendants. There is no dispute regarding the defendant No.7 is running a Hotel business in the suit schedule premises, admittedly it is used for business purposes. I have also gone through the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. The principles laid down in these decisions are well founded. It is held in one of the decisions that, “Order XX Rule 12 enables the court to pass a decree for both past and future mesne profits, but, there are important distinctions in the procedure for the enforcement of the Two claims. With regard to past mesne profits, the plaintiff has an existing cause of action on the date of institution of the suit. In view of Order VII Rule 1 and 2 and Order VII Rule 7 of CPC and Sec.7(1) of Court Fees Act, the plaintiff must plead this cause of action, specifically claim a decree for the past mesne profits, value the claim approximately and pay court fees thereon…….”

In another decision it is held that, Order VII Rule 10 CPC “Pecuniary jurisdiction of Civil Court – Determination of Valuation of Suit – If plaintiff grossly over values or undervalues suit with the object of bringing it within the jurisdiction of a particular court, the plaint can be directed to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to proper court – but, if valuation is made by the plaintiff on the basis of the relief claimed by him which is neither absurd nor imaginary, but, requires judicial consideration, and on that basis suit is presented before original side of the High Court, held, the High Court cannot reject the relief at the outset without going into its merits and accordingly reducing the valuation and directing return of the plaint for presentation before proper court in accordance with Sec.15.”

The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff come to his aid in the present facts and circumstances of the case. The plaintiff has also pleaded regarding the cause of action also on 12.04.2024, and claiming mesne profits from defendant Nos.1 to 6 from 13.04.2024. The plaintiff has valued the suit claim at Rs.5,13,740/- and paid the court fee U/Sec.41(2), Sec.21 and Sec.42 of KCF and SV Act. There are no gr