IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Debangsu Basak And The Hon’ble Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi APD 11 of 2023 WITH CS 83/2019 INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED VS JAYANTA KRISHNA DATTA AND ANOTHER For the Appellant : Mr. Anirban Ray, Ld. Sr. Adv.

Mr. Amit Kr. Nag, Adv.

Mr. Partha Banerjee, Adv.

Mr. Debraj Shaw, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sarvapriya Mukherjee, Adv.

Mrs. Iram Hassan, Adv.

Mr. Samriddha Sen, Adv.

Mr. Himangshu Bhawsinghka, Adv.

Hearing Concluded on : February 12, 2026 Judgement on : March 12, 2026 DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. Appellant has assailed the judgment and decree dated February 17, 2023 passed in IA GA No. 1 of 2019 in CS No. 83 of

2019.

2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the impugned judgment and decree ought to be set aside since, the same was passed in a suit involving a commercial dispute within the meaning of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. He has contended that suit was not filed in the Commercial Division therefore, accordingly, learned Single Judge has erred in exercising jurisdiction over the subject suit.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, by two registered indenture of leases both dated September 10, 2008, the respondents leased two immovable properties. The respondents had contended in the plaint that, two leases expired by efflux of time and consequently, the appellant became a trespasser. He has pointed out that, the immovable property is being used for running petrol pump and that, lease deed dated September 10, 2008 mentions the same. Consequently, he has contended that, the dispute involved in the suit is a commercial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Act of 2015. He has relied upon 2020 Volume 15 Supreme Court Cases 585 (Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited vs. K. S. Infraspace LLP and Another) in support of such contention.

4. Relying upon 2025 SCC OnLine Calcutta 5076 (T. E. Thomson & Company Limited vs. Swarnalata Chopra Nee Kapur and Another) learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, the lease deeds can be looked into and considered by the Court in suit for eviction. According to him, the ratio in 1998 Volume 7 Supreme Court Cases 184 (Raptakos Brett and Company Limited Versus Ganesh Property) is not attracted and in any event was considered in T.

E. Thomson & Company Limited (supra).

5. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, in defending an application under Chapter XIII A of the Original Side Rules, a defendant is required to establish the existence of triable issue in order to receive an order for filing written statement unconditionally. He has contended that, the plea of the thika tenancy raised is a triable issue. He has contended that, the suit property is a thika tenancy within the meaning of Calcutta Thika Tenancy (Acquisition and Regulation)

Act, 1981.

6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents has contended that, there is no commercial dispute within the meaning of Act of 2015 involved in the suit. In support of such contention, he has contended that, the fact that the lease deeds dated September 10, 2008 expired by efflux of time on August 02, 2018 is not in dispute. Consequently, the appellant has become a tenant-in-sufferance which is akin to that of a trespasser having no contractual right with the land owner. In support of such contention, he has relied upon 2000 Volume 3 Supreme Court Cases 250(Haldiran Bhujiawala and Others Versus Anand Kumar and Deepak Kumar and Others), 1995 Volume 5 Supreme Court Cases 698 (R.V. Bhupal Prasad Versus State of Andhra Pradesh) and 1998 Volume 7 Supreme Court Cases 184 (Raptakos Brett and Company Limited Versus Ganesh Property).

7. Comparing Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, 1932 with Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Act of 2015, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent h