IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'commercial dispute' under the Commercial Courts Act and its application to the nature of the dispute between the parties.

JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 have filed the present application being GA No. 3 of 2023 praying for rejection of plaint. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 have contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is commercial in nature and thus this Court is not having jurisdiction to try the suit. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 says that initially the plaintiff has let out one shop room to M/s. Prakash Brothers being represented by two partners, namely, Laxmi Prasad Gupta and Om Prakash Gupta by entering into an agreement. The said firm defaulted in paying rent and accordingly the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 3, 4 and 5 have filed the suit before the City Civil Court at Calcutta being Ejectment Suit No. 476 of 1987 which was subsequently renumbered as the Ejectment Suit No. 408 of 2002. On 7th April, 2008, the Learned 4th Bench of City Civil Court at Calcutta passed decree in favour of the plaintiff and subsequently in an execution case through the bailiff of the Court, the possession was handed over to the plaintiff on 26th October, 2009 by the said firm.

2. Learned Counsel for the defendant nos. 1 and 2 submits that it is the admitted case of the plaintiff that on 9th June, 2019, the plaintiff came to know that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 have occupied the suit premises and the suit premises is a shop room. He submits that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 are in occupation of the suit shop room in terms of the earlier agreement entered between the plaintiff and M/s. Prakash Brothers.

3. Mr. Meghnad Dutta, Learned Advocate representing the defendant nos. 1 and 2 submitted that, it is established that the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant nos. 1 and 2 is commercial in nature and thus this Court is not having jurisdiction to try the suit.

4. Mr. Dutta, Learned Counsel appearing for the defendant nos. 1 and 2 had relied upon the judgment reported in (2020) 15 SCC 585 (Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP & Anr.) and submitted that 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. He submits that in the present case, the genesis of the case starts from the agreement entered by the plaintiff with M/s. Prakash Brothers and admittedly the premises is a shop room and thus the case of the plaintiff is covered under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

5. Mr. Dutta further relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CO No. 759 of 2021 (Deepak Polymers Private Limited vs. Anchor Investments Private Limited) dated 24th June, 2021 and submitted that in the event, the suits were for termination of lease on the ground of forfeiture for violation of any of the clauses of the lease agreement or for the specific performance of the agreements or suits of like nature, the suits would definitely come within the purview of “commercial dispute” as defined in Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

6. Mr. Dutta submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff is commercial in nature and as such this Court is not having jurisdiction thus the suit is liable to be dismissed.

7. Per contra, Learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits that it is the specific case of the plaintiff that initially the plaintiff has let out the premises, M/s. Prakash Brothers being represented by its two partners, namely, Laxmi Prasad Gupta and Om Prakash Gupta at a monthly rent of Rs.33/-per month. The said tenants defaulted in paying the monthly rent and accordingly the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiff as well as the defendant nos. 3 to 5 have filed the suit before the City Civil Court at Calcutta for their eviction and accordingly by on 7th April, 2008, a decree was passed for eviction of the said tenants.

8. Mr. S.E. Huda, Learned Advocate representing the plaintiff submits that the said ju