1. Eviction suit under M.P. Accommodation Control Act — RCA rejected plaint holding Commercial Court jurisdiction applies. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(MP) 2871
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Jain, J
Sheikh Ahmad Hanfi – Appellant
Versus
Aparajita Sharma – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION No. 980 of 2024
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Harsh Vardhan Soni
For the Respondents: Enosh George Carlo, Deepak Kumar Raghuvanshi
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Harsh Vardhan Soni
For the Respondents: Enosh George Carlo, Deepak Kumar Raghuvanshi
An eviction suit filed under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, based on statutory grounds such as bona fide need, is not a 'commercial dispute' under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, even if the property is used for commercial purposes.
Headnote:(A) M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - Section 12(1) - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 2(c)(vii) - Eviction of tenant - Jurisdiction of Commercial Court - The suit was filed by a landlord, being a retired government servant and senior citizen, for eviction on grounds of bona fide need to open a nursing home - The premises were let out for commercial purpose (running a nursing home) - The Rent Controlling Authority (RCA) rejected the plaint holding that since the property is used for commercial purposes, the suit lies before the Commercial Court (Paras 1-5).
(B) Subject Matter Jurisdiction - It is settled in law that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by estoppel; agreements or prior objections in other proceedings cannot bestow jurisdiction upon a court if it otherwise lacks such jurisdiction (Para 8).
(C) Commercial Dispute - Under Section 2(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, a commercial dispute involves agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce - A suit for eviction based on statutory rights under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, having no nexus with a breach of lease agreement, does not fall within the definition of a commercial dispute merely because the property is used for business (Paras 9-13, 17).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a retired government servant and senior citizen, filed an eviction application before the RCA against the respondents who were running a nursing home in the suit premises, citing bona fide need. The RCA rejected the application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, ruling that as the property was used for commercial purposes, the matter was cognizable only by the Commercial Court.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the eviction suit was based on statutory rights under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, and did not involve any breach or enforcement of a commercial agreement. Therefore, it does not constitute a "commercial dispute" under the 2015 Act.
Issues: Whether a suit for eviction based on statutory grounds under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, is maintainable before the RCA or must be filed in a Commercial Court simply because the premises are used for commercial purposes.
Ratio Decidendi: A suit for eviction based on specified grounds of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, does not fall within the definition of a commercial dispute under Section 2(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, regardless of whether the property is used for business, as the cause of action arises from statutory rights rather than a commercial agreement.
Result: Petition allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- practice and procedure
- property law
- statutory interpretation
Table of Contents
2. Landlord: Eviction suit before RCA for bona fide need. Tenant: Property used commercially; only Commercial Court has jurisdiction. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. Eviction suit based on statutory rights under M.P. Accommodation Control Act not a commercial dispute under Section 2(c)(vii) of 2015 Act. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
4. A suit for eviction based on statutory rights under Rent Control Act is not a commercial dispute even if premises used commercially. (Para 14 , 17 )
5. Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; RCA to decide eviction application on merits as maintainable. (Para 18 )
6. Whether an eviction suit seeking possession on grounds under the Rent Control Act is a commercial dispute?
No, because the suit arises from a statutory right under the Rent Control Act, not from any agreement, so Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act does not apply. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 )
7. Can subject-matter jurisdiction be conferred by estoppel or a prior order in another proceeding?
No. Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by estoppel, agreement, or a prior order passed in a different suit between the parties. (Para 7 , 8 )
8. What is the test for a dispute to be a 'commercial dispute' relating to immovable property?
The dispute must directly arise out of an agreement relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce, and be based on that agreement, not on a statutory right. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 15 )
ORDER
By way of present petition, challenge is made to the impugned order passed by the Rent Controlling Authority ('RCA' for short), thereby rejecting the application/plaint of the petitioner for eviction of respondents on the grounds that the matter is cognizable by the Commercial Court and since the property has been let out for commercial purpose, therefore, the Courts will not have jurisdiction to entertain the application for eviction.
2. It is not in dispute that under M.P. Accommodation Control Act 1961 , for certain special categories of landlords on some specific grounds, eviction petitions are entertained by RCA while for regular categories of landlords, regular civil suits are filed before the regular Civil Courts. Since the present petitioner claims to be a special category of landlord being retired government servant and senior citizen, therefore, as a special category of landlord, he had filed application/plaint before the RCA for eviction of the respondents on the grounds of bona fide need of himself and his sons and daughter to open a nursing home in the suit premises.
3. It is not in dispute that the premises have been let out for commercial purpose and the present respondents are running a nursing home in the suit premises, whereas the plaintiff landlord, who is the petitioner before this Court is also a doctor and was previously in government service and has filed the eviction suit on the grounds of bona fide need to open nursing home for himself and his children as they are also having medical degree.
4. It is not in dispute that the defendants filed an application for eviction of plaintiff under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the grounds that since the property is let out for commercial purpose, therefore, the suit will lie only before the commercial court and not before the regular court or the RCA. This objection has been sustained by the RCA and the claim has been rejected. The aforesaid order is passed by the RCA on the ground that the respondents had also filed a suit against the landlord as they were apprehending unlawful dispossession at the hands of the landlord and his family members and sought permanent injunction, and in that suit, the District Court held that it is not maintainable before the Civil Court, but before a Commercial Court. Hence, the landlord should also approach the Commercial Court.
5. In the present case before the RCA, the defendants/respondents filed an application for rejection of plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC on the ground that since the property is let out for commercial purpose, therefore, the suit will lie before the Commercial Court and not before the Regular Court or the RCA. This objection has been sustained by the RCA and the plaint has been rejected.
6. The aforesaid order is defended by learned counsel for the respondents defendants on the ground that the respondents had also filed a suit against the landlord as they were apprehending unlawful dispossession at the hands of the landlord and his family members and sought permanent injunction. In the said suit, which was filed during the pendency of the suit/application before the RCA, the landlord appeared and took objection that the matter is cognizable by Commercial Court and that objection was sustained by the District Judge and now the landlord cannot take a different plea in the matter and even otherwise the RCA was bound by what was held by the District Judge.
7. Upon considering the aforesaid assertions and on perusal of the record, it is seen that the suit has not been filed raising any commercial dispute. It is simply filed by a landlord for eviction of the suit premises and the plea of jurisdiction of Commercial Court is being raised only on account of the fact that the suit premises are let out for commercial purpose, i.e., running a nursing home by the tenants.
8. It is settled in law that subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by estoppel and if the landlord in the suit filed by the tenant seeking i
