JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. The appeal is against the judgment and order dated July 14, 2023 passed in CS No. 26 of 2021.

2. The appeal is at the behest of the defendant in a suit for eviction. Appellant suffered a decree of eviction by the impugned judgment and order.

3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the suit involves commercial disputes within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. He refers to the pleadings of the plaint. He submits that the suit was premised upon an agreement dated September 14, 2018. The agreement relates to a tenancy created in respect of an office space in an office block. He submits that, as on the date of institution of the suit, the suit property was used for commercial purposes. Secondly, according to him, the suit involves commercial dispute. In support of such contention he relies upon (Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. K. S. Infraspace LLP & Anr.  (2020) 15 SCC 585).

4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the suit was filed on January 29, 2021. He submits that, the Act of 2015 came into effect on and from October 23, 2015. Initially, there was a notification specifying the specified value under the Act of 2015. Subsequently by a notification dated March 20, 2020, the specified value was re-organized. By reason of such notification, specified value for a High Court suit is Rs.10 lakhs and above. He refers to the valuation of the suit as made by the plaintiff in the plaint. He submits that, the suit is above the specified value under the Act of 2015.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the suit was instituted on January 29, 2021. According to him, the plaintiff did not file any application seeking urgent interim reliefs.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the impugned judgment and order was passed in the non-commercial division while the suit involved commercial disputes. Therefore, according to him, the impugned judgment and order is wholly without jurisdiction.

7. Relying upon (Laxmi Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. vs. Eden Realty Ventures Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.  AIR 2021 Cal 190, Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. vs. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd.  (2022) 10 SCC 1 and Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Anr.  (2025) 9 SCC 424), learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the suit is no longer maintainable.

8. In response to a query of the Court, learned advocate appearing for the respondent submits that, the suit property is presently used as an office by the appellant.

9. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent submits that, the respondent filed an application for execution. Respondent received possession of the suit premises from the appellant. She submits that, the respondent is entitled to the mesne profit as prayed for.

10. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent draws the attention of the Court to the impugned judgment and order. She submits that several applications were considered by the impugned judgment and order. One of such application was GA/2/2022 which was an application for urgent interim relief.

11. Learned advocate appearing for the respondent, on instruction, submits that, the respondent is applying under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for transfer of the suit from the non-commercial division to the commercial division, in the event the Court is pleased to hold that the suit involves a commercial dispute.

12. Three applications were disposed of by the impugned judgment and order. GA/2/2022 was filed by the plaintiff with a prayer for deposit of outstanding rent along with interest and for occupational charges as well as physical possession of the property. GA/3/2022 was filed by the plaintiff praying for final judgment and decree for eviction and recovery of vacant possession. GA/5/2022 was filed by the appellant seeking rejection of the plaint.

13. Issue that has fallen for consideration in the appeal is, whether, t