Point of Law : Sub-section 2 specifies for a recovery of immovable property from a tenant including a tenant holding over after the termination of the tenancy fee shall be computed from the premium, if any, and on the rent payable for the year next before the date of presentation of the suit.

ORDER :

Basant Balaji J.

M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd has filed this Transfer Petition challenging Ext.P3 order of the Munsiff’s court, Perumbavooor in I.A. No.5 of 2021 in O.S. No.407 of 2017. It is a petition filed under Section 15(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short 'the Act') read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to transfer a suit to the Commercial Court. The learned Munsiff, by Ext.P3 order dismissed petition holding that the dispute involved in the suit will not come under the purview of Section 2(c)(vii) of the Act.

2. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 filed O.S. No.407 of 2017 before the Musniff’s Court, Perumbavoor for a decree declaring the termination of lease and recovery of possession of the lease and to direct the defendants to give vacant possession of the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties to the plaintiffs and for a mandatory injunction decree to remove the underground fuel tanks, fuel discharging purpose and such other structures erected by the defendants in the plaint schedule property. The damage at the rate of Rs.13,817/- per month for the unauthorized use and occupation of the plaint ‘A’ schedule and damages at the rate of Rs.12,468/- per month for unauthorized use and occupation of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property was also sought for. A permanent prohibitory injunction for transferring or assigning the above said 31.755 cents of property to a third party was one of the reliefs claimed in the plaint.

3. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.5 of 2021 to transfer the suit to the Commercial court of the District in accordance with Section 15(2) of the Act, 2015. The learned Munsiff after hearing parties passed Ext.P3 declining to transfer the suit to the Commercial court.

4. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the plaint schedule premises is being used exclusively for the purpose of trade and commerce and therefore, it is covered under the definition of commercial dispute as envisaged under section 2(c)(vii) of the Act. The petitioner is running a petrol outlet in the plaint schedule property. The lease agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondents is that of a commercial purpose. The petitioner is in possession of the plaint schedule properties on the basis of the registered lease deed which permits the petitioner to install equipment to run a petrol retail outlet. He contended that as per Section 6 of the Act, the commercial courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits and applications relating to a commercial dispute of ‘specified value’ arising out of the entire territory of the State over which it has been vested territorial jurisdiction. Moreover, determination of Specified value is as per Section 12 of the Act. It states that when the relief sought in the suit relates to immovable property or to a right therein, the market value of the immovable property as on the date of value of the suit has to be taken into account. In the present suit, the court fee payable is as per the market value of the property as on the presentation of the suit, which the plaintiffs have not done and once the market value is determined it will be over Rs.3,00,000/- as per Section 2(1)(i) of the Act. Hence, the Munsiff court ought to have allowed the Transfer Petition and allowed transfer the suit to the commercial court.

5. The counsel for the respondents submits that a simple suit for termination of lease is the subject matter in the issue. There is no commercial dispute between the petitioner and the respondents. Though the activity conducted by the petitioner may be commercial, it will not bind the respondents and it cannot be said that there is commercial activity between the petitioner and the respondents. The valuation in the suit is on the basis of the rent payable for a year and hence, the suit is properly valued and the court fee payable is less than the specified value as stated in the Act.

6. Heard.

7. Section 2(1)(i) of the Act, defines com