A dispute relating to immovable property used as office space, where the suit value exceeds the specified threshold, constitutes a 'commercial dispute' under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.:-

1. Appeal is at the behest of the defendant no.1 and directed against order dated February 27, 2026.

2. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge, held that, the subject matter of the suit relates to a commercial dispute within the meaning of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and, therefore, directed the department to place CS/53/2010 before the Court with the appropriate determination.

3. We find from the impugned order that, CS/53/2010 as also EOS/7/2010 are noted therein. We enquired from the learned counsel for the parties as to whether both were transferred or not.

4. Court is informed that, IA GA/1/2025 was filed in CS/53/2010 seeking transfer of CS/53/2010 to the Commercial Division on the ground that, subject matter of such suit involves commercial dispute within the meaning of the Act of 2015.

5. Since IA GA/1/2025 limited itself to CS/53/2010, we hold that, the impugned order relates to CS/53/2010. Therefore the impugned order directed transfer of CS/53/2010 only.

6. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant draws the attention of the Court to the pleadings in the plaint. He refers to the prayers in the plaint. He submits that, issue with regard to alleged municipal tax liability, cannot form subject matter of a commercial dispute within the meaning of the Act of 2015. Moreover, he submits that, the immovable property in its entirety is not used for commercial exploitation. In the present moment, some of the portions are lying vacant. Therefore, it cannot be said that, the entire property being the subject matter of the suit, is used for commercial purposes, to come within the meaning of the Act of 2015.

7. Learned advocate for the appellant submits that, the clauses of the deed of conveyance, on the basis of which the alleged claim is made, cannot be construed to mean that, it involves a commercial dispute within the meaning of the Act of 2015.

8. In support of his contention, learned advocate appearing for the appellant relies upon (2020) 15 Supreme Court Case 585: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1311 ( Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited - Vs- K. S. Infraspace LLP And Another ).

9. Corporation authorities are represented.

10. Learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff in CS/53/2010 submits, on instruction, that, he was requested by his client not to appear in the appeal. In response to a query of the Court, he clarifies that IA GA/1/2025 was filed by the plaintiff in CS/53/2010.

11. Case of the plaintiff is that, by an indenture dated September 14, 1946, the appellant purchased and acquired two inter-connected three storied buildings. Such three storied buildings were let out to various tenants. Plaintiff claimed that it desired to purchase and acquire 1 st floor and 2 nd floor of the two buildings in Block- B, C, G and I of the aggregate carpet area of 10,940 sq. ft., subject to the tenancies existing. A deed of conveyance dated August 4, 2003 was entered into by which the appellant sold to the plaintiff diverse portions of the 1 st floor and 2 nd floor of the two buildings comprised in Block B, C, G and I of the aggregate carpet area of 10,940 sq. ft., subject to tenancies.

12. Claim of the plaintiff in CS/53/2010 is that, under Clause 2 and va