Disputes arising from commercial tenancies fall within Commercial Courts Act jurisdiction; ordinary civil courts lack jurisdiction.

The respondent no. 1 instituted Title Suit No. 1570 of 2026 before the Sixth Bench of the City Civil Court at Calcutta, seeking, inter alia, a declaration that it was a monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises and a permanent injunction protecting its possession.

The suit premises comprised a commercial office space at Premises No. 11, Dr. U. N. Brahmachari Street, Kolkata, and the plaint described the tenancy as a commercial tenancy.

The City Civil Court granted an ad-interim injunction by order dated 27 July 2026.

The appellant challenged that order, contending that the dispute was a “commercial dispute” under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and that the ordinary civil court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.

The High Court admitted the appeal and heard it finally on the short jurisdictional issue.

The Court applied Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, which covers commercial disputes arising out of agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce.

It also applied the specified-value framework under Section 12 of the Act, under which the competent commercial forum is determined by the specified value of the subject matter rather than merely by the valuation stated in the suit.

The Court relied on the Notification dated 20 March 2020 governing the jurisdiction of commercial courts within the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court at Calcutta: matters valued from Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 10 lakhs fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the City Civil Court; matters exceeding Rs. 10 lakhs but not exceeding Rs. 1 crore fall within its concurrent jurisdiction with the Commercial Division of the High Court; and matters of Rs. 10 lakhs and above may be entertained by the Commercial Division of the High Court.

The Court treated the pleadings in the plaint and injunction application as decisive for identifying the nature of the dispute.

Since respondent no. 1 itself pleaded a monthly tenancy of commercial office premises and characterised the tenancy as commercial, the dispute fell within Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the 2015 Act.

Consequently, the matter was required to be instituted and dealt with as a commercial suit before the forum having jurisdiction under the specified-value provisions and the applicable notification.

The impugned proceeding had instead been instituted as an ordinary civil suit before an ordinary civil court, and the injunction had been granted by that court.

The High Court therefore held that the trial court lacked subject-matter/inherent jurisdiction, rendering the injunction order legally unsustainable, without conclusively determining the merits of the injunction claim.

The ordinary City Civil Court lacked the requisite subject-matter/inherent jurisdiction to pass the impugned order in the manner in which the suit had been instituted.

FMAT 298 of 2026 was accordingly allowed, and the ad-interim injunction order dated 27 July 2026 in Title Suit No. 1570 of 2026 was set aside, on contest against respondent no. 1 and ex parte against respondent no. 2.

The Court clarified that its findings were tentative and that the pending injunction application could be decided independently and in accordance with law by the learned Trial Judge.

CAN 1 of 2026 was disposed of, with no order as to costs.