JUDGMENT :

N.V. Anjaria, J.

(1.) Whether the plaint of the Civil Suit instituted by the respondent- original plaintiff liable to be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to be presented before the proper court, is the question arising for consideration. Does the suit between the parties involve a 'commercial dispute' within the meaning of Section 2 (1)(c) of the Commercial Court's Act, 2015 is the crux of the controversy.

1.1 It is in context of this question that the petitioner - original defendant has challenged order dated 12.1.2022 passed by learned Judge, Commercial Court, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, below application Exhibit 27 in Commercial Civil Suit No.3269 of 2021, whereby the application of the petitioner under Order VII Rule 10, CPC came to be rejected.

(2.) Heard learned senior advocate Mr.Mehul Shah with learned advocate Mr.Harsh Gajjar and learned senior advocate Mr.Mihir Thakor assisted by learned advocate Mr.Abhisst Thaker for the respondent, at length.

(3.) In order to appreciate the issue, looking at the subject matter of the suit instituted by the respondent herein against the petitioner, the prayer was made for possession, declaration and permanent injunction in respect of property described as non-agricultural land of Revenue Survey No.419, 420/K paiki, Final Plot No.43, Town Planning Scheme No.10, Rakhiyal, Ahmedabad together with the industrial shed thereon admeasuring 1876.93 sq.mtrs. The property was purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant by virtue of registered sale deed dated 4.10.2019.

3.1 In para 3 of the plaint, it was averred and mentioned by the plaintiff, inter alia thus,

"3. The present suit property was originally owned by the present Defendant, who were using the said Suit Property as warehouse for its business. It is most respectfully submitted that, the absolute title, interest over the suit property for the present Plaintiff was established on 04.10.2019 by virtue of aforesaid Sale Deed and the Plaintiff herein had also paid dues sales consideration of Rs.1,95,00,000=00 to the present Defendant which is not in dispute."

3.1.1 The case was explained further in para 4 stating, "Since the present Defendant herein is using the suit property for its warehouse, the Defendant herein had urged the Plaintiff to take the suit property on leave and licence basis for 11 months 29 days for smooth transition / shifting of its business activities at new address. Hence, the Plaintiff herein had agreed to the request made by the present Defendant and had executed the aforesaid leave and licence agreement for 11 months 29 days in favour of the Defendant."

3.1.2 It was thus the case of the plaintiff that before the property was purchased from the defendant, it was used originally by the defendant as warehouse for its business. In order to enable the defendant to find new address for its business, after the property was sold to the petitioner, the Leave & Licence Agreement dated 4.10.2019 came to be executed between the parties fixing the period and monthly licence fees. The plaintiff pleaded that defendant failed to pay the licence fees and that the amount due was recoverable from the defendant. It was stated that at the request of the defendant the Leave & Licence Agreement was extended also.

3.1.3 It was thereafter claimed that the defendant was liable to hand over the possession of the suit property upon expiry of the licence period. It was further averred that having not complied with the repeated requests of the plaintiff in that regard and having continued with the possession and occupation of the suit property, the defendant had become a trespasser after lapse of period of Leave & Licence Agreement which was mutually extended.

3.1.4 Clause 16 (d) of the licence agreement was relied on by the plaintiff to further averred that the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.30,000/- per day from the determination of the Leave & Licence Agreement till the possession is restored t