Courts adjudicating commercial disputes under Order XIIIA must provide detailed reasoning when denying summary judgment or failing to issue conditional orders, ensuring that the need for a full trial is based on substantive justification rather than mechanical refusal when documentary evidence is available for threshold determination.

JUDGMENT :

HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.

1. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of the plaintiff and is directed against an order being no. 38 dated February 17, 2025 passed by the learned Judge, Commercial Court at Rajarhat in T.S. (Com) No. 27 of 2024.

2. By the order impugned, the application under Order XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the petitioner herein stood rejected on contest.

3. The facts giving rise to this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in a nut shell, are as follows.

4. By a registered deed of lease dated July 31, 2019, the petitioner as lessor had leased out an immovable property comprising of a commercial space together with covered car parking spaces in two contiguous buildings at Kazi Nazrul Islam Avenue (for short “the suit property”) to the opposite party herein, for a period of 9 years commencing from July 1, 2019. The opposite party paid the monthly lease rent as per the agreed terms of the lease deed till March 2020. However, from April 2020 the opposite party did not make payment of the monthly lease rent as per the terms of the lease deed.

5. By a letter dated April 7, 2020, the opposite party expressed its willingness to pay rent at the rate of 2% of actual revenue from March 22, 2020 in view of the onset of Covid-19 Pandemic. Petitioner immediately replied to the letter dated April 7, 2020 by an e-mail dated April 9, 2020 stating that Covid-19 pandemic do not fall within the purview of Force Majeure Clause and, therefore, the Covid-19 Pandemic did not exonerate and/or prevent the opposite party in any manner whatsoever from discharging its obligations with regard to payment of lease rent in terms of the lease deed. Though there was exchange of correspondences between the parties, but the petitioner did not agree to accept the payment terms as proposed by the opposite party.

6. The opposite party, without consent of the petitioner, deposited certain amounts in the bank account of the petitioner but the petitioner returned such amounts to the opposite party and also raised objections against such deposits being made by the opposite party.

7. Petitioner through its learned advocate issued a notice dated September 16, 2020 informing the opposite party about the “material breach” of the terms and conditions of the lease deed and called upon the opposite party to rectify such default within one month from the date of receipt of the said notice and on failure to rectify the default within the time limit stipulated therein, the lease deed shall stand terminated on the expiry of two months thereafter. The opposite party replied to the notice dated September 16, 2020 by a letter dated September 29, 2020.

8. On the grounds as stated hereinbefore, the petitioner filed the instant suit for recovery of possession, decree for arrears of lease rent, mesne profits and for perpetual injunction.

9. In the said suit, the petitioner took out an application under Order XIIIA of the Code of Civil Procedure for passing a summary judgment and decree for recovery of vacant and peaceful possession of the demised premise