Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rangmahal Theater New Market Tt Nagar vs Anil Kumar Jain on 16 March, 2026
1 MP-427-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 16th OF MARCH, 2026
MISC. PETITION No. 427 of 2025
RANGMAHAL THEATER NEW MARKET TT NAGAR
Versus
ANIL KUMAR JAIN
Appearance:
Mr. Sanjay Agrawal - Senior Advocate with Ms. Neerja Agrawal -
Advocate for petitioner.
Mr. R.K. Sanghi - Senior Advocate with Mr. Raghav Sanghi -
Advocate for respondent.
ORDER
The present petition is filed challenging the order dated 11.11.2024 passed
by the trial Court, whereby the trial Court during the course of an eviction
suit has held the suit to be not maintainable before the regular Civil Court
and has held that suit would lie before the Commercial Court under the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and consequently directed transfer of the suit
to the Commercial Court.
2. Counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection that this
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable
because it is an order in terms of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC and, therefore, it
would be appealable as per Order 43 Rule 1(a) CPC.
3. Upon considering the aforesaid objection, it is seen that though the order
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
15:48:02
2 MP-427-2025
impugned has been passed deciding an application under Order 7 Rule 10
CPC but the ultimate order that has been passed by the trial Court on
11.11.2024 is not of return of plaint which is contemplated under Order 7
Rule 10 CPC, but the trial Court has directed transfer of the suit rather than
return of the plaint. Therefore, though the application was under Order 7
Rule 10 CPC, but the ultimate order is not of return of plaint and therefore, it
does not fall within the purview of Order 7 Rule 10 CPC. Therefore, this
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is held to be
maintainable.
4. The plaintiff has filed an eviction suit on the ground that he has let out
three commercial shops and the suit has been filed for eviction of the
commercial shops in the premises of a theatre. The plaint alleges that the
shops were let out in the year 2003 and on account of occurrence of various
events, various grounds have been created in favour of the landlord as per
Section 12(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act for eviction of
tenant. Though there is a written lease deed/rent note between the parties
which is placed on record as Annexure P-2 containing various conditions but
the suit has not been filed seeking eviction for violation or seeking
enforcement of the terms of the lease deed/rent note. The suit has been filed
simpliciter for eviction alleging that various grounds of eviction have been
created in favour of landlord looking to the conduct of the tenant and,
therefore, the suit is simply a suit for eviction in terms of Section 12 of the
M.P. Accommodation Control Act.
5. This Court has already decided the issue in CR No.747 of 2025 in detail
by considering the judgments of the Gujarat High Court, one view of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
15:48:02
3 MP-427-2025
Calcutta High Court as well as various judgments of this Court wherein, in
such circumstances, suits have been found maintainable and this Court has
not followed the contrary view of Delhi High Court and one view of Calcutta
High Court which was relied by the other side in that case. This Court has
held as under:
“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:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
15:48:02
4 MP-427-2025
“(vii) agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or
commerce;”
7. In the present case, there are no allegations of breach of any agreement or
enforcement of terms of any agreement executed between the parties. Neither any written
agreement nor any oral agreement has been pleaded by either of the parties which has
been alleged to be violated by the defendant or sought to be enforced by the Landlord. The
entire plaint does not relate to any clause of the oral or written agreement alleged to be
breached, either at the instance of the Plaintiff or at the instance of the defendants who
also have not made any pleading of breach of any oral or written agreement between the
parties.
8. The same dispute was raised before the Calcutta High Court in the case of Deepak
Polymers (P) Ltd. v. Anchor Investments (P) Ltd. reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 4323
and the Calcutta High Court in the aforesaid case has decided the matter in great detail and
held that once the suit arises out of statutory right conferred by Section 108 of Transfer of
Property Act having no direct nexus with the lease agreement, therefore, once the
precondition of dispute emanating out of lease agreement being not satisfied, the matter
would not fall within the purview of Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
9. The Calcutta High Court in the aforesaid case held as under:-
“30. However, the cardinal question which has not been addressed but is pivotal
to the present adjudication is the expression “dispute” which precedes the
expression “arising out of” as appearing in Section 2(1)(c) of the 2015 Act.
Reading sub-clause (vii) in conjunction with the starting words of Clause (c), it is
seen that the expression “agreements relating to immovable property….” qualifies
the term “dispute” arising out of such agreements.
3 1 . A “dispute” can only be determined by the cause of action of the suit and
not the preceding backdrop. Even if Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act
deals with termination of the jural relationship of lessor and lessee, pre-supposing
a prior lease agreement, the bundle of facts comprising the cause of action of the
suit is the sole determinant of the “dispute” involved in the suit.
32. In the event the suits, in the present case, had been filed for recovery of
possession in respect of immovable property on the ground of forfeiture for
contravention of any of the terms and conditions of the respective agreements-in-
question, it might have been argued that the suits pertains to disputes “arising out
of” such agreements.
33. However, the dispute itself, in the present case, arises out of refusal by the
defendants to comply with the notices issued by the lessor under Section 106 of
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which is based on a statutory right
independent and irrespective of any clause of the lease agreements.
34. Hence, the suits squarely arise out of a statutory right conferred by Section
106 of the Transfer of Property Act, having no direct nexus with the lease
agreements in respect of the immovable properties concerned. Thus, the pre-
condition of the applicability of Section 2(1)(c)(vii), that is, the emanation of the
dispute out of the lease agreement, is not satisfied in the present suits. Thus, the
secondary question as to whether the immovable properties are used exclusively in
trade or commerce, pales into insignificance.”
10. Similar is the present case in hand wherein the Landlord has filed eviction suit
exercising the rights given to the Landlord and the grounds of eviction given to the
Landlord as per M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 and has exercised the rights laid
down in grounds under Section 12 (1) (a) (b) (h) (o) of the said Act seeking eviction of
tenant.
11. This issue has been decided by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Mohit Sadana Vs.
Vijay Kumar Goyal reported in 2025 (3) JLJ 147 , wherein an exactly similar dispute has
been decided and it has been held that a suit for eviction would not be maintainable before
a Commercial Court only because the suit shop is being used for carrying out business or
trade. The judgment of Division Bench of Gujarat High Court has been considered by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
15:48:02
5 MP-427-2025
Coordinate Bench and it has been held as under:-
” 9 . In order to find out as to whether a dispute is a commercial dispute or not,
one has to conjointly read Sections 2(1)(c)(vii), Section 2(1)(i) and Section 12 of
the Act. From a plain reading of aforesaid provisions, it is clear that only suits,
appeals or applications relating to a commercial dispute of a specified value are to
be tried by the Commercial Court. Merely because the suit shop is being used for
carrying out business or trade, the suit for eviction from the suit shop would not
fall within the definition of commercial dispute of specified value.
10. The Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Ujwala Raje
Gaekwar (Supra) has held that merely because the movable property in question is
going to be used or is being used exclusively in trade or commerce, the dispute
does not become a commercial dispute as defined under Section 2(1)(c) of the
Act. If the object and purpose of establishment of Commercial Courts,
Commercial Divisions and Commercial Appellate Divisions of the High Court are
considered, then it is clear that the establishment of Commercial Courts had
become necessary on account of inordinate delays and to ensure fast disposal of
high value commercial disputes to provide assurance to domestic and foreign
investors.
11. …………… It has also been held that a perusal of the Statement of Objects
and Reasons of the Commercial Courts Act Act, 2015 and the various
amendments to the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and insertion of new rules to that
Code applicable to suits of commercial disputes show that the said Act has been
enacted for the purpose of providing an early disposal of high value commercial
disputes. A purposive interpretation of the Statement of Objects and Reasons and
various amendments to the Civil Procedure Code leaves no room for doubt that
the provisions of the Act require to be strictly construed. If the provisions are
given a liberal interpretation, the object behind constitution of Commercial
Division of Courts viz. putting the matter on fast track and speedy resolution of
commercial disputes, will be defeated. If one takes a closer look at the Statement
of Objects and Reasons, words such as “early” and “speedy” have been
incorporated and reiterated. The object shall be fulfilled only if the provisions of
the Act are interpreted in a narrow sense and not hampered by the usual
procedural delays plaguing our traditional legal system. Thus, a dispute relating to
immovable property per se may not be a commercial dispute. But it becomes a
commercial dispute, if it falls under sub-clause (vii) of Section 2(1) (c) of the
Commercial Courts Act viz. “the agreements relating to immovable property used
exclusively in trade or commerce”. The conclusion arrived at herein, that in order
to fall within Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, the immovable
property must be “used exclusively” or “being used exclusively” in trade or
commerce, is agreed to. The words “used exclusively in trade or commerce” are to
be interpreted purposefully. The word “used” denotes “actually used” and it
cannot be either “ready for use” or “likely to be used” or “to be used”. It should be
“actually used”. Such a wide interpretation would defeat the objects of the Act and
the fast tracking procedure for deciding the commercial disputes. In the present
case, there is nothing on record to show that at the time when the agreement to sell
came to be executed in 2012, the property was being exclusively used in trade and
commerce so as to bring the dispute within the ambit of sub-clause (vii) of Section
2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act. Merely because the property is likely to be
used in relation to trade and commerce, the same cannot be the ground to attract
the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court.
12. Therefore, this Court is of considered opinion that merely because suit shop
is being used for running business, the question of eviction from said suit shop
would not become commercial dispute.”
12. The coordinate bench has relied on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. K.S. Infraspace LLP and Another, (2020) 15 SCC
585 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“13. The learned Senior Advocate for the appellant would however, contend that a strict
interpretation as in the case of taxing statutes would not be appropriate in the instant caseSignature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
15:48:02
6 MP-427-2025
where the issue relates to jurisdiction. In that regard, the learned Senior Advocate has
referred to the Statement of Objects and Reasons with which the Commercial Courts Act,
2015 is enacted so as to provide speedy disposal of high value commercial disputes so as
to create the positive image to the investors world about the independent and responsive
Indian legal system. Hence, he contends that a purposive interpretation be made. It is
contended that a wider purport and meaning is to be assigned while entertaining the suit
and considering the dispute to be a commercial dispute. Having taken note of the
submission we feel that the very purpose for which the CC Act of 2015 has been enacted
would be defeated if every other suit merely because it is filed before the Commercial
Court is entertained. This is for the reason that the suits which are not actually relating to
commercial dispute but being filed merely because of the high value and with the
intention of seeking early disposal would only clog the system and block the way for the
genuine commercial disputes which may have to be entertained by the Commercial
Courts as intended by the lawmakers. In commercial disputes as defined a special
procedure is provided for a class of litigation and a strict procedure will have to be
followed to entertain only that class of litigation in that jurisdiction. If the same is strictly
interpreted it is not as if those excluded will be non-suited without any remedy. The
excluded class of litigation will in any event be entertained in the ordinary civil courts
wherein the remedy has always existed.
14. In that view it is also necessary to carefully examine and entertain only disputes
which actually answers the definition “commercial disputes” as provided under the Act.
In the instant case, as already taken note neither the agreement between the parties refers
to the nature of the immovable property being exclusively used for trade or commerce as
on the date of the agreement nor is there any pleading to that effect in the plaint. Further
the very relief sought in the suit is for execution of the mortgage deed which is in the
nature of specific performance of the terms of Memorandum of Understanding without
reference to nature of the use of the immovable property in trade or commerce as on the
date of the suit. Therefore, if all these aspects are kept in view, we are of the opinion that
in the present facts the High Court was justified in its conclusion arrived through the
order dated 1-3-2019 [K.S. Infraspace LLP v. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd., 2019
SCC OnLine Guj 1926] impugned herein. The Commercial Court shall therefore return
the plaint indicating a date for its presentation before the Court having jurisdiction.
36. A perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Commercial Courts Act,
2015 and the various amendments to the Civil Procedure Code and insertion of new rules
to the Code applicable to suits of commercial disputes show that it has been enacted for
the purpose of providing an early disposal of high value commercial disputes. A
purposive interpretation of the Statement of Objects and Reasons and various
amendments to the Civil Procedure Code leaves no room for doubt that the provisions of
the Act require to be strictly construed. If the provisions are given a liberal
interpretation, the object behind constitution of Commercial Division of Courts viz.
putting the matter on fast track and speedy resolution of commercial disputes, will be
defeated. If we take a closer look at the Statement of Objects and Reasons, words such as
“early” and “speedy” have been incorporated and reiterated. The object shall be fulfilled
only if the provisions of the Act are interpreted in a narrow sense and not hampered by
the usual procedural delays plaguing our traditional legal system.”
13. Another coordinate bench of this Court in Bhopal Fracture Hospital Vs. Savitri Devi
Vijaywargiya (2024 (4) MPLJ 223) has also held the same by referring to the statement of
objection reasons of Commercial Courts Act, the plain language of Section 2 as well as
Section 12 of the said Act, that relates to determination of specified value.
14. In view of the aforesaid, following the views taken by the coordinate benches of this
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
15:48:02
7 MP-427-2025
Court so also by the earlier view of Calcutta High Court in the case of Deepak Polymers
(supra) which has not been considered in its later case of Maharshi Commerce (supra)
cited by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, so also the view taken by the Gujarat High
Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that in such matters of eviction where the
Landlord is exercising his right given to him to seek eviction on specified grounds under
M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, the suit would not fall within the definition of
Commercial dispute in terms of Section 2(c) of Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
15. Consequently, finding no ground to interfere in the present Revision, the same is
dismissed and the eviction suit is held maintainable before the Civil Court”
6. Therefore, as the present petition being in similar terms, the present
petition is also allowed and the suit before the regular Civil Court/trial Court
is held to be maintainable. The trial Court is directed to proceed ahead with
the trial of the suit.
7. Petition is allowed and disposed of.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGEpsm
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 17-03-2026
15:48:02