The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of what constitutes a Commercial Dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the determination that the claim for damages for unlawful occupation and mental agony can be termed as a Commercial Dispute.

JUDGMENT :

This application has been filed taking advantage of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to reject the plaint as been barred by law.

2. The plaintiff had instituted the present suit seeking a direction against the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.3,88,69,185/- (Rupees Three Crores Eighty Eight Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousand One Hundred and Eighty Five only) as damages for wrongful occupation of the property belonging to the plaintiff and also a sum of Rs.1,08,30,815/- (Rupees One Crore Eight Lakhs Thirty Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifteen only) towards damages for mental agony suffered by the plaintiff owing to the wrongful occupation of the said property and for costs.

3. Heard Mr.O.R.Santhanakrishnan, learned counsel for the applicant / defendant and Mr.A.K.Balaji, learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff.

4. A brief glance into the background facts reveal that the plaintiff herein was the landlord and the defendant was the lessee who had been given the benefit of running a petrol bunk litigations arose. The litigations went up to the doors of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by an Order dated 04.03.2016, in S.L.P.(Civil) No.5619 of 2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed the Special Leave Petition which have been preferred by the applicant / defendant herein, but however granted time till 31.12.2016 to deliver vacant and peaceful possession, subject to the condition that arrears of rent if any shall be paid at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) per month from the date of the Order. It is pointed by Mr.O.R.Santhanakrishnan that the possession has been handed over on 02.12.2016.

5. The grievance expressed by Mr.O.R.Santhanakrishnan is that there was an undertaking or an implied understanding that there will not be any mutual claims made by either party against the other. The applicant / defendant had thought that the entire matter had come to a rest.

6. However, the plaintiff had instituted the present suit in C.S.No.51 of 2020 seeking the reliefs as stated above. Written statement has also been filed by the defendant.

7. At this juncture, the defendant had taken out the present application calling upon the Court to examine the maintainability of the suit and urging that the plaint has to be rejected as barred by law primarily under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC.

8. The issue which is now taken up by Mr.O.R.Santhanakrishnan is that suit which had been filed as a Commercial Dispute, cannot be termed as a Commercial Dispute and that the Commercial Division has no jurisdiction to examine the issues raised. It is pointed out the applicant / defendant had vacated the premises and therefore, the reliefs in the suit claiming damages not only for occupation, but also on the ground of mental agony, suffered cannot be termed as Commercial Disputes and that the lis is not a Commercial lis.

9. A counter had been filed by the respondent.

10. It is the claim of Mr.A.K.Balaji, learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff that the litigation between the parties had traversed through various layers of the Courts right from the Original Suit, First Appeal, Second Appeal and then a Writ Petition and then a Writ Appeal and had finally landed in the laps of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein, the applicant / defendant herein was given the liberty to vacate the premises. It is stated that by the present suit, damages for unlawful occupation from the years 2003 to 2016 and for mental agony have been claimed.

11. The learned counsel stated that the original lis was a Commercial Dispute, in view of the fact that lessee / applicant / defendant was running a petrol bunk which by any stretch of imagination can only be termed as a Commercial Venture. Learned counsel justified the institution of the suit before the Commercial Division.

12. My attention is drawn to the Explanation of Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 as amended under Section 2(1)(c) about 21 categories of disputes have been enumerated wh