Expired commercial lease disputes constitute commercial disputes under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The respondents (landlords) filed a suit for eviction and recovery of possession against the appellant (IOCL) regarding two immovable properties leased via registered deeds dated September 10, 2008.

The leases expired by efflux of time on August 02, 2018, and subsequent negotiations for rent enhancement failed.

The properties were being used exclusively as a petrol pump.

The respondents filed the suit (CS 83/2019) in the non-commercial division of the High Court and obtained a decree for eviction under Chapter XIII A of the Original Side Rules on February 17, 2023.

The appellant challenged this decree, contending the suit involved a "commercial dispute" and should have been filed in the Commercial Division subject to the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Whether the suit for eviction, arising after the expiry of a lease for property used for a petrol pump, constitutes a "commercial dispute" under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

Whether the suit filed in the non-commercial division without complying with the mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Act is maintainable.

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

It relied on *Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP*, establishing that the property must be used for commerce *in presenti*.

It followed the Special Bench decision in *T.E. Thomson & Company Ltd. vs. Swarnalata Chopra*, holding that an expired lease deed must be considered to determine the jural relationship and that a dispute does not cease to be commercial merely because it seeks recovery of immovable property.

Furthermore, it applied Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, which mandates pre-institution mediation unless urgent interim relief is sought, as a jurisdictional prerequisite.

The Court reasoned that all three criteria for a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) were met: (i) the dispute arose out of lease agreements, (ii) the properties were immovable, and (iii) the properties were used exclusively for trade (selling oil/lubricants) at the time of the suit.

The Court rejected the argument that the dispute was purely statutory post-expiry of the lease; referencing *Raptakos Brett and Co. Ltd.*, it held that the expired contract remains a "crucial piece of evidence" to establish the landlord's right to eviction and that the obligation to deliver possession arises from the lease terms.

Since the suit involved a commercial dispute and the plaintiffs did not seek urgent interim relief, the mandatory requirements of the 2015 Act applied.

Consequently, filing the suit in the non-commercial division was a jurisdictional error.

It further held that the failure to comply with the mandatory pre-institution mediation under Section 12A rendered the suit's institution invalid.

While the Court initially considered returning the plaint under Order VII Rule 10, the respondents requested a disposal on merits.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree dated February 17, 2023, and dismissed C.S. No. 83 of 2019 for lack of jurisdiction and non-compliance with Section 12A.