IMPORTANT POINT
An eviction suit under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act does not constitute a commercial dispute and is maintainable in Civil Court, not Commercial Court.

ORDER :

VIVEK JAIN, J.

The present Revision has been filed challenging the Order dated 17.06.2025 at the instance of the Tenant who is aggrieved by rejection of his application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC whereby the Trial Court has rejected the objection of the Petitioner raised by the said application that the suit before the regular Civil Court is not maintainable and the same should be filed or transferred to the Commercial Court.

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent has been filed by the Plaintiff/Landlord on the assertion that the defendants are tenant and sub-tenant respectively of Shop No.5 and the suit property being a shop, therefore, it is a commercial property and used exclusively for commercial purpose. Therefore, as per Section 2 (c)(vii) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the dispute comes within the definition of commercial dispute as per the Act of 2015 and therefore, it is exclusively triable by the Commercial Court. It is argued that the Trial Court has wrongly rejected the application of the Petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC by overlooking the position that the suit was not maintainable before the Trial Court and it was maintainable only before the Commercial Court.

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner/tenant has relied on judgment of High Court of Calcutta in C.S.No.3/2019 whereby the Calcutta High Court has returned the Plaint to the Plaintiff in a similar matter of eviction of Tenant from commercial property holding the suit to be maintainable only before the Commercial Court. It is therefore, argued that in view of definition of commercial dispute as per Section 2 (c)(vii) of the Act of 2017, the suit was not maintainable before the regular Civil Court and it could only have been filed before the Commercial Court.

4. Further reliance is made on a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Kartar Singh Kochhar v. ICICI Bank Ltd. Reported in 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6987 wherein the Delhi High Court has held in similar terms.

5 . Per contra, it is contended by learned counsel for the Respondent/Landlord that the suit is not filed for enforcement or breach of any agreement relating to any immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce, but it is filed to seek eviction of the Tenant by exercising the rights given to the Landlord and the grounds made available to the landlord under Section 12 (1) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act. Therefore, it is simplicitor an Eviction suit under M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and it cannot be stated to be a commercial dispute by any stretch of imagination because the Respondent/Landlord is only exercising the rights to get the Tenant evicted on grounds under the Accommodation Control Act and nothing else. It is not a dispute relating to any agreement in respect of immovable property used in Trade and Commerce. Therefore, it is argued that the suit is maintainable and the Trial Court has rightly held the suit to be maintainable and rightly rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. filed by the Petitioner/Tenants.

6. Upon hearing learned counsel for the rival parties and on perusal of the record, it is seen that as per Section 2 (c)(vii) of the Act of 2015, following has been provided as one of the commercial disputes defined under the Act of 2015:-

“(vii) agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce;”

7. In the present case, there are no allegations of breach