Suit for eviction from property used for commerce constitutes a commercial dispute requiring pre-institution mediation.

The plaintiff (Respondent No. 1) filed a suit for eviction and mesne profits against the defendants in the non-commercial division of the High Court

The suit property, a petrol pump, was originally leased to the predecessor of Defendant No. 1 in 1952

The plaintiff alleged that the lease expired by efflux of time and that the defendants were now trespassers or "tenants-in-sufferance"

The defendant (Appellant) filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC for rejection of the plaint, contending that the dispute was "commercial" under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and thus the suit was improperly filed in a non-commercial court

The Single Judge dismissed the application, leading to this appeal

1. Whether a suit for eviction of an occupant from an immovable property used for trade or commerce constitutes a "commercial dispute" under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, even if the plaintiff labels the defendant a trespasser

2. Whether the non-commercial division of the High Court has the jurisdiction to entertain a suit that falls within the definition of a commercial dispute

The Court applied 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

It relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in *Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited vs. K. S. Infraspace LLP*, which held that the property must be "actually used" for trade to qualify

Further, the Court followed the Special Bench decision in *T. E. Thomson & Company Limited vs. Swarnalata Chopra*, which clarified that a lease agreement must be considered to determine the jural relationship even in eviction suits initiated after a Section 106 Transfer of Property Act notice

The mandatory nature of pre-institution mediation under Section 12A of the Act of 2015 was also central to the ruling

The Court found that all three criteria for a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) were met: (i) the dispute relates to an immovable property; (ii) the property is currently and "actually" used as a petrol pump (commerce)

(iii) the dispute arises out of an agreement, specifically the 1952 lease and subsequent payments of occupation charges

The Court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the suit was a simple trespasser eviction, noting that the court must look at the underlying registered lease and the conduct of the parties to determine the nature of the relationship

By filing in the non-commercial division, the plaintiff bypassed the mandatory pre-institution mediation required by Section 12A of the 2015 Act, which the Court held is a substantive right that cannot be defeated by clever drafting of the plaint

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Single Judge's order, and rejected the plaint in CS 191 of 2022

However, it granted the plaintiff liberty to file a fresh suit before the appropriate commercial forum following the due process of law