A suit claiming eviction due to illegal occupation does not constitute a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, requiring only the Controller to determine thika tenancy.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA RAO, J.

1. The defendant no.2 has filed an application being G.A. No. 1 of 2023 praying for rejection of plaint or in the alternative to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff being C.S. No. 191 of 2022.

2. The defendant no.2 has raised two issues in the present application i.e. (i) The suit filed by the plaintiff arising out of ‘commercial dispute’ but the plaintiff has filed the suit in the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, and (ii) The suit is barred by law as the defendant no.1 is a thika tenant in respect of the suit property.

3. Mr. Anirban Ray, Learned Senior Advocate representing the defendant no.2 submits that the defendant no.2 is a partnership concern involved in the purchase and sale of petroleum products and motor oils, having its principal place of business in the suit property. The defendant no.2 has three partners and the latest deed of partnership was entered between the partners on 2nd April, 2019.

4. Mr. Ray submits that by way of a registered lease deed dated 5th December, 1952, one Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distribution Company was granted lease in respect of the suit property. He submits that the lease agreement was for immovable property to use exclusively for trade and commerce. Mr. Ray submits that the defendant no.1 is a Government of India undertaking involved in the business of petroleum. He submits that on 24th January, 1976, interest of the lease was acquired by the Central Government under the name Burman Shell Refinery Limited and now known as Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited.

5. Mr. Ray submits that the dispute raised by the plaintiff in the present suit is commercial in nature and coming under the purview of Commercial Courts Act, 2015. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment in the case of T.E. Thomson & Company Limited Vs. Swarnalata Chopra Nee Kapur and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 5076.

6. The defendant no.1 is a thika tenant with respect to the suit property. The suit property comprises of a petrol pump which was constructed by the defendant no.1 in its capacity as thika tenant. He submits that the defendant no.1 as a thika tenant with respect to the suit property had filed a Writ Petition before this Court being W.P. No. 4052 of 1988 seeking leave to deposit its rent as thika tenant of the suit property before this Court. By an order dated 5th January, 1990, the Court has allowed the defendant no.1 to deposit rent with the Registrar, Original Side of this Court. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment in the case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society, represented by its Chairman Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust reported in (2012) 8 SCC 706 and submits that the plaintiff has pleaded the said fact in the plaint and can be relied upon in an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

7. Mr. Ray submits that the suit property is a thika property as the officer-in-charge by a demand notice dated 14th October, 2011, demanded ground rent from the defendant no.1 and also intimated that in default action will be taken as per law. He further relied upon the notice dated 30th December, 2021, whereby the said officer-in-charge directed the defendant no.1 to appear before him with all relevant documents for verification.

8. Mr. Ray submits that the