The determination of whether premises qualify as a commercial dispute hinges on actual use, not merely the designation of the property as residential.

JUDGMENT :

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.

I.A. 15508/2022 (under Order XIII-A of the Commercial Courts Act and/or under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC for dismissal of the suit)

1. The present application has been filed by the defendants under Order XIII-A read with Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

2. The brief facts as noted from the amended plaint are that the plaintiff no.l is a senior citizen and landlord of the property being 29, South Patel Nagar, New Delhi – 110008 [hereinafter, 'suit premises']. It is averred in the plaint that father of the plaintiff no.1 had let out the suit premises to late Trilok Nath Sachdeva and Surendra Kumar Sachdeva vide lease agreement dated 10.12.1968 on a monthly rent of Rs.1450/-.

3. It is further averred that the said premises was let out for the purpose of running a college. It is the case of the plaintiffs that since May 2020 the defendant no.1 has failed to pay the rent. Thus, the arrears of rent as on date of filing of the present suit comes to Rs.14,99,994/-.

4. It is stated that when the suit premises was let out to the defendants, it was without unauthorized construction, encroachment and alteration. However, the defendants have altered the suit premises without intimation to the plaintiffs. Resultantly, L&DO had marked and recorded the misuse/unauthorized construction and claimed dues payable from the plaintiffs.

5. In order to save the suit premises, the plaintiffs cleared the outstanding dues payable to L&DO to the tune of Rs.1,17,93,538/-. Therefore, it is averred that the defendants are liable to pay the said charges to the plaintiffs.

6. It is because of the aforesaid disputes which have arisen between the plaintiffs and the defendants, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking eviction and possession of the suit premises; arrears of rent amounting to Rs.14,99,994/-; amount of Rs.1,17,93,538/- towards unpaid L&DO charges; permanent injunction restraining the defendants from creating any third party interest in the suit premises and mesne profits @ Rs.10,000/- per day towards unauthorized occupation by the defendants qua the suit premises, or in the alternative direction to the defendants to pay enhanced rent @ Rs. 4,00,000/-per month.

7. During pendency of the present suit, the defendants have filed the present application seeking following reliefs:

“a. Pass a summary judgment in favour of the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs thereby dismissing the suit; and / or

b. Pass a judgment thereby rejecting the Plaint as being barred under law.”

8. As set out in the application, the defendants have stated the following facts to show that the plaintiffs have no real prospect of succeeding on the claim made in the suit:

i. The plaintiffs have not paid the requisite court fee and not properly valued the suit;

ii. There is no valuation of the suit for the purpose of possession and eviction;

iii. The dispute does not come within the definition of commercial dispute as contemplated under Section 2 (1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 [hereinafter, 'the Act'];

iv. Suit is liable to be dismissed being barred under the provisions of Delhi Rent Control Act,1958 [hereinafter, 'DRC Act'];

v. Entire amended plaint contains vague and legally untenable pleadings and lacks material particulars; and

vi. In para 25 of the amended plaint, though the plaintiffs assert that they have given details of amount recoverable from the defendants in Schedule A attached to the plaint, however, in the entire pleadings and documents supplied by the plaintiffs, the defendants have not come across any such Schedule, therefore, the amount claimed is not ascertainable as required under Order VII Rule 2 CPC.

9. Mr. Hemant Chaudhri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants submits that as per the provision of Section 7 of the Courts-Fees Act, 1870 [hereinafter 'Court-Fees Act'] the value of the relief for the pu