The court clarified that the definition of a commercial dispute requires exclusive commercial use, limiting the scope of Article 227's supervisory jurisdiction to jurisdictional errors rather than mere mistakes.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

CM(M) 487/2022, CM 24914/2022 (exemption), CM 24915/2022 (exemption) and CM 25058/2022 (stay)

1. This petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assails an order dated 28th March, 2022, passed by the learned Additional District Judge ("the learned ADJ") in CS(DJ) 146/2021 (M/s Delcap Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Jasveer Lal Gour).

2. The respondent, who was plaintiff in the aforesaid suit, alleged that in September, 2020, the petitioner had approached the respondent for taking the property forming subject matter of the suit ("the suit property") on lease, to run a "bed and breakfast" (commonly referred to as "B & B") establishment. This culminated in execution of a Lease Deed dated 25th September, 2020 between the respondent and the petitioner, whereby the respondent leased out the suit property to the petitioner for the period 1st November, 2020 to March, 2021 @ Rs.1,20,000/- and for the period March, 2021 to September, 2021, accompanied by a security deposit of Rs.3,00,000/-. The respondent alleged, in the plaint, that the petitioner had defaulted in paying the monthly rent as per the Lease Deed and had also defaulted in paying the entire amount of security deposit. This, alleged the plaint, resulted in the respondent addressing, on 8th January, 2020, a notice of termination to the petitioner, followed by attempts to physically take possession of the suit property, which, according to the respondent, were obstructed by the petitioner. Premised, inter alia, on these asseverations and assertions, the respondent filed CS(DJ) 146/2021 before the learned ADJ, seeking (i) a decree of possession of the suit property in favour of the respondent and against the petitioner, and (ii) a decree of permanent injunction, restraining the petitioner from interfering with the rights of the respondent in respect of the suit property, apart from arrears of rent, compensation, damages, interest and costs.

3. The petitioner filed an application, in CS(DJ) 146/2021, under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), alleging that the suit could not be maintained before the Civil Court, as it had to be tried as a commercial suit, in terms of the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

4. The impugned order rejects the said application. Being aggrieved, the petitioner-defendant has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. The impugned order reveals that the learned ADJ has rejected the petitioner's application under Order VII Rule 7 of the CPC on the ground that the suit property had not been leased out exclusively for commercial purpose.

6. "Commercial dispute" is defined, in Section 2(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, as including, inter alia, "a dispute arising out of agreement relating to immovable property, used exclusively in trade or commerce".

7. The legislature does not engage in tautology and superfluity¹ . The words used by the legislature must; be regarded as having being employed deliberately have to be attributed their ordinary meaning. The use of the word "exclusively" as used in Section 2(c)(vii) cannot, therefore, be overlooked.

8. The Lease Deed, dated 25th September, 2020, executed between the petitioner and the respondent commences with the following recitals:

"THIS LEASE DEED is executed on this 25th September, 2020 BETWEEN

Delcap Financial Services Pvt. having its regd office at N-43, Lane no W-17, Sainik Farms New Delh-110062 hereinafter called "the LESSOR" (which expression shall wherever the context permits be deemed to include its su