Claims arising from expired leases of immovable property used for commerce constitute commercial disputes.

The appellant (plaintiff) filed a civil suit (CS/234/2019) seeking a money decree of Rs. 29,63,946/- against the respondent bank

The claim arose from the respondent's occupation of the appellant's premises (ground, mezzanine, and first floors used as a bank branch and ATM) after the initial lease expired on March 31, 2014

While a new lease for a portion of the premises was executed on December 21, 2017, the appellant sought damages/rent for the intervening period when the bank remained in possession

A Single Judge of the High Court, via an order dated November 25, 2025, directed the return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, holding that the matter constituted a "commercial dispute" that must be presented before the Commercial Court

The appellant challenged this order, contending the suit was a simple claim for damages and not a commercial dispute

Whether a dispute involving a claim for mesne profits or damages arising from the occupation of immovable property after the expiry of a lease qualifies as a "commercial dispute" under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which defines a "commercial dispute" as one arising out of agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce

Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the return of a plaint to the appropriate forum

The court relied on the precedent Auto Fuels & Services v. Amalgamated Fuels Ltd. & Anr. (2026: CHC-OS: 84-DB), which established a three-pronged test for Section 2(1)(c)(vii): (i) the dispute must arise out of an agreement; (ii) it must relate to immovable property; and (iii) the property must be exclusively used for trade or commerce

The court examined the nature of the claim to determine if it met the criteria set out in Auto Fuels & Services

First, it found the "foundational basis" of the claim was the expiry of a lease deed, meaning the dispute originated from an agreement relating to immovable property

The court rejected the appellant's argument that the suit was merely for damages, noting that even if a lessee is a "tenant in occupation" akin to a trespasser after lease expiry, the relationship and the subsequent negotiations for renewal remain rooted in the contractual agreement

Second, the court observed that the property was "exclusively used for commerce" as a bank branch and ATM

Consequently, the court concluded that all three legal ingredients were satisfied, justifying the classification of the suit as a commercial dispute under the Act of 2015

The court held that the dispute squarely fell within the definition of a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015

The court granted the appellant a fortnight's extension to obtain the returned plaint and court fees from the registry for presentation before the appropriate Commercial Court