Pending Supreme Court review does not suspend binding High Court precedent on commercial eviction suits, Calcutta High Court rules

The appellant filed a suit for eviction, alleging that the respondent-lessee had failed to vacate the premises despite service of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, dated 24 December 2024.

The appellant sought an ex parte ad interim injunction. The Single Judge declined that relief, noting that the maintainability of an eviction suit based on a Section 106 notice in the Commercial Division was pending consideration before the Supreme Court.

The appellant appealed, relying on the Calcutta High Court Special Bench decision in T. E. Thomson & Company Limited v. Swanalatha Chopra Nee Kapur and the later decision in Xclusive Inn Private Limited v. Anjana Guha.

Whether the appeal was maintainable against the refusal to grant ex parte ad interim injunction on the ground that the suit’s maintainability was pending consideration before the Supreme Court.

Whether the Single Judge could defer consideration of the matter because the issue was pending before the Supreme Court, despite the binding Special Bench ruling in T. E. Thomson.

The Special Bench in T. E. Thomson & Company Limited v. Swanalatha Chopra Nee Kapur, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 5076, held that the lease agreement must be considered to determine the nature and character of the landlord–tenant relationship, including the validity of a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

It further held that the Explanation to Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, forms part of the statutory test for identifying a commercial dispute and that a claim for recovery of immovable property does not, by itself, alter the dispute’s commercial character.

A Special Bench decision binds a Single Judge and a Division Bench unless and until it is displaced by a superior court.

The Court also noted that the Supreme Court had declined to interfere with the order in Xclusive Inn Private Limited v. Anjana Guha, 2026 SCC OnLine Cal 8715.

The impugned order refused ex parte interim relief because the maintainability issue was pending before the Supreme Court. The Division Bench held that the binding Special Bench ruling in T. E. Thomson remained operative until set aside and could not be disregarded merely because the Supreme Court was considering the issue.

Since the Single Judge was bound by that ruling, postponing a decision on the merits would leave the appellant without a forum for relief.

The appeal was therefore maintainable, but the Division Bench did not itself grant the injunction; it directed fresh consideration by the Single Judge.

It set aside the impugned order and remanded the injunction petition to the Single Judge for fresh consideration. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.