JUDGMENT :

(Krishna Rao, J.) :

1. Plaintiffs have filed the instant application under Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 for transfer of suit being C.S. No. 214 of 2010 from this Court to Commercial Division.

2. The plaintiffs has initially filed the suit in the year 2010 under the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 praying for following reliefs :

“a) A decree for recovery of khas possession of the suit premises being premises No. 5, Prafulla Sarkar Street, (previously known as Sootarkin Street) particulars of which is given in the Schedule by evicting the defendants therefrom;

b) A decree for outstanding rent and interest thereon aggregating to Rs. 2,12,413/-(Rupees Two lacs twelve thousand four hundred thirteen) only;

c) A decree for payment of outstanding Kolkata Municipal Corporation Tax to Rs. 8,01,759/-(Rupees Eight lacs one thousand seven hundred fiftynine) only:

d) A decree for mesne profit @ Rs. 15,000/-per diem for the period from 1st May, 2010 till the date of recovery of khas possession of the suit premises particularized in the schedule given hereunder;

e) A decree for damages amounting to Rs. 25,00,000/-as fully stated in paragraph No. 31 herein;

f) Alternatively, and enquiry for damages and a decree be passed for such sum or sums as be found thereon;

g) Receiver;

h) Injunction;”

3. After filing of the written statement by the defendants, the plaintiffs have made amendment by incorporating paragraph 31A as well as prayer C1 of the plaint by incorporating the ground of Transfer of Property Act, 1887. Amended paragraph 31A and prayer C1 reads as follows :

“31A The plaintiff alternatively states that the said lease deed dated 4th October, 1951 expired by efflux of time long ago, nevertheless the erstwhile lessee Madan Lal Poddar, (Since deceased) intentionally and with due knowledge of the said conditions of the said lease, did not dislodge, remove or take away any or all the erections, materials, sheds set up or created or brought upon the suit premises within the stipulated period of three months after the expiry of said lease or even thereafter and by reason of payment and acceptance of rent monthly in respect of land only and after expiry of the said lease period the said erstwhile lessee remained monthly tenant by payment and acceptance of rent for vacant land only government under the Transfer of Property Act. The notice of Ejectment was duly served upon the defendant but the defendants did not vacate the vacant land being the suit premises by removing structure therefrom. That by virtue of deeds of transfer executed and registered in favour of the plaintiff by the ten shareholders of the suit premises the plaintiff has became fully entitled to evict the defendants from the suit premises. The defendants have got no right to occupy the suit premises after the determination of monthly tenancy by notice to quit in respect of the bare land in question. The defendants despite receipt of the notice of ejectment neither removed the structure or building nor handed over the vacant land unto the plaintiff hence the plaintiff is entitled to have ejectment decree against the defendants.”

C1) A decree for payment of Rs. 28,827/-(Rupees Twenty eight thousand eight hundred twenty seven) only paid by the plaintiff to Kolkata Municipal Corporation on behalf of the defendants in respect of the “suit premises”.

4. Mr. Haradhan Banerjee, Learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Swatarup Banerjee, Learned Advocate representing the plaintiffs submits that it is the specific case of the plaintiffs that on 12th August, 1988, the heirs of Nirode Bihari Lahiri, since deceased lodged a complaint to the police station stating that the defendants have forcefully broke open the shop room of the Lahiries and started illegal construction in the suit premises.

5. Mr. Banerjee submits that defendants have made illegal construction on the area occupied by Automotive Rubber Company and it is crystal clear that the suit property at t