IMPORTANT POINT
The court confirmed that the counter-claim is a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, emphasizing the need for clear admissions for invoking judgment on admissions.

ORDER :

(Dr. Kauser Edappagath, J.)

The common order passed in IA No.6/2024, and the issue of maintainability of counter-claim in OS No.206/2023 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Palakkad (for short, 'the trial court') is under challenge in the above Original Petition and Civil Revision Petition.

2. I refer to the status of the parties hereunder as they are referred to in the suit, i.e., the plaintiff and the defendant.

3. The plaint schedule property comprising a shop room having a plinth area of 12,000 sq. ft situated on the ground floor of a shopping mall viz. Thappy's Mall at Court Road, Palakkad admittedly belongs to the defendant. It was taken on a license basis by the plaintiff from the defendant to run a supermarket as per the license deed executed between them on 26/4/2018 (marked as Ext.A1). The period of license was ten years w.e.f. 26/4/2018. The license fee initially agreed was Rs.3,50,000/- per month with an enhancement @5% per annum. At present, the license fee per month is Rs.3,95,000/-. There is no dispute between the parties regarding their jural relationship and the rate of license fee.

4. The plaintiff instituted the suit originally as OS No.200/2023 at the Munsiff Court, Palakkad, against the defendant for a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining him from trespassing into the plaint-schedule property or interfering with the plaintiff in running the business conducted in the plaint-schedule building. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant obstructed the plaintiff in running the business in the plaint-schedule building to pressurise him to vacate the building so as to let it out to a third party for higher rent. The suit was subsequently transferred to the trial court as per the order in Transfer OP No.167/2023 of the District Court, Palakkad and it was renumbered as OS No.206/2023. The defendant entered appearance and filed a written statement along with a counterclaim. In the written statement, it was contended that the plaintiff defaulted the payment of the license fee and the arrears of the license fee as of March 2023 would come to Rs.1,34,07,140/-. It was further contended that since the plaintiff defaulted the payment of the license fee, the defendant revoked the license invoking Clauses (5) and (10) of the agreement on 20/12/2022 w.e.f. 1/04/2023. It was also contended that on 27/4/2023, through the mediator, the plaintiff approached the defendant, agreed to surrender the vacant possession of the plaint schedule building, made an endorsement on the reverse side of Ext. A1 agreement that he would vacate it and hand over the key within twenty days and handed over the original agreement to the defendant. The said endorsement was separately marked as Ext. A1(a). In the counter-claim, the defendant sought a mandatory injunction to eject the plaintiff from the plaint-schedule building. Thereafter, the defendant filed an application as IA No.6/2024 under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC seeking to direct the plaintiff to leave the plaint-schedule property based on the alleged admission. The plaintiff filed a counter affidavit to the application inter alia, contending that the counter-claim is not maintainable before the civil court as the dispute involved is a commercial dispute, and it has to be transferred to the Commercial Court under Section 15(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (‘CC Act’ for short). The trial court, after hearing both sides, dismissed IA No.6/2024, and the counter-claim along with the suit was ordered to be transferred to the Commercial Court. CRP No. 133/2024 has been filed by the defendant challenging the common order. OP(C) No.753/2024 has been filed by the plaintiff to the extent of transferring the counter-claim to the Commercial Court.

5. I have heard Sri. P. B. Krishnan, the learned Senior Counsel for the plaintiff, and Sri. B. Krishnan, the learned counsel for the defendant.

6. I will address the challenge to the order in IA No.6/2024 and the maintainability of the