A recent ruling by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur clarifies that the mere commercial use of a property does not automatically grant jurisdiction to a Commercial Court. In the case of Kanhaiya Lal Aswani vs. Deepak Manohar Lal Chawala and Others (Civil Revision No. 747 of 2025), the Court established a clear boundary between disputes arising from business agreements and those arising from statutory rent control laws.
The dispute centered on a commercial property (a shop) occupied by a tenant (the Petitioner). The landlord (the Respondent) filed a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent specifically under the grounds provided in Section 12(1) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961.
The tenant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, arguing that because the shop was used exclusively for trade and commerce, the dispute fell under Section 2(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The tenant contended that the regular Civil Court lacked jurisdiction and the matter should be transferred to a Commercial Court. The Trial Court rejected this application, leading the tenant to approach the High Court in in civil revision under Section 115 of CPC.
Issues Before the Law
The High Court was tasked with answering two questions:
- Does a suit for eviction from a commercial property, filed under a specific state rent control statute, constitute a “commercial dispute” under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015?
- Does the phrase “agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce” cover statutory eviction grounds where no specific breach of a lease agreement clause is alleged?
The Verdict and the Court’s Reasoning
The High Court dismissed the revision, upholding the Trial Court’s decision that the suit was maintainable before a regular Civil Court.
The Court’s reasoning was based on three pillars:
- Statutory vs. Contractual Rights: The Court noted that the landlord was exercising a statutory right under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, not seeking to enforce or remedy a breach of a specific clause in a lease agreement.
- Strict Interpretation: Relying on the Supreme Court precedent in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. K.S. Infraspace LLP (2020) 15 SCC 585, the Court held that the Commercial Courts Act must be strictly and narrowly construed. A liberal interpretation would clog Commercial Courts with standard eviction cases, defeating the goal of “speedy disposal” for genuine high-value commercial litigation.
- Actual Dispute Nexus: The Court followed the logic of the Calcutta High Court in Deepak Polymers (P) Ltd., stating that a “dispute” is determined by the cause of action. Since the cause of action was a refusal to vacate under statutory notice (Section 12 of the M.P. Act), and not a breach of an agreement, it did not satisfy the pre-condition of being a commercial dispute.
Why This Case is Important
This judgment is a crucial guide for advocates practicing in Madhya Pradesh and beyond. It prevents the misuse of the Commercial Courts Act as a “procedural shortcut” for standard landlord-tenant disputes. It reinforces the principle that usage of property is not the sole determinant of jurisdiction; rather, it is the legal basis of the claim (the “nexus” to an agreement) that matters most.
Key Takeaways
- • Commercial Usage Is NOT EQUAL TO Commercial Dispute: Just because a property is a shop or a factory does not automatically make an eviction suit a “commercial dispute”.
- • Narrow Construction: Expect courts to strictly interpret the 2015 Act to protect the integrity of the fast-track system for genuine commercial matters.
- • M.P.Accommodation Control Act: Suits filed under Section 12(1) of this Act remain firmly within the jurisdiction of regular Civil Courts.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does commercial use of a property make an eviction suit a “commercial dispute”? +
What determines if a dispute is “commercial” under the 2015 Act? +
Why was the eviction suit in this case held to be a civil dispute? +
Which Court has jurisdiction over suits filed under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act? +
How does the Court interpret the Commercial Courts Act? +
Disclaimer
This post is for informational and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, financial advice, or professional advice of any kind. Laws and their interpretation may vary depending on facts, circumstances, and jurisdiction.
Neither Siddharth Shukla, Advocate, nor any associate, partner, or member of Siddharth Shukla Office, Jabalpur, accepts any responsibility or liability for any loss, damage, or consequence arising from reliance on this content.
Readers are strongly advised to consult a qualified lawyer or appropriate professional for advice specific to their situation. Reading this content does not create a lawyer–client relationship.
