Introduction: The intersection of local tenancy laws and the Commercial Courts Act often creates notable jurisdictional tussle. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh addressed this precise issue in case of Kanhaiya Lal Aswani v. Deepak Manohar Lal Chawala and Others, Civil Revision No. 747 of 2025. Pronounced on January 20, 2026, this ruling gives crucial clarity on whether an eviction suit for a commercial property must be tried exclusively by a specialized Commercial Court.
Background of the Dispute: The legal battle commenced when a landlord filed a suit for eviction and the recovery of rent arrears against the tenant and subtenant of Shop No. 5. In response, the tenant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, objecting to the jurisdiction of the regular Civil Court.
The tenant argued that because the property in question is a shop used exclusively for commercial purposes, the matter squarely falls under the definition of a commercial dispute as per Section 2(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The Trial Court rejected this application, leading the aggrieved tenant to file a Civil Revision before the High Court.
The Core Legal Question The primary issue before the High Court was to determine the exact scope of Section 2(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. This specific section categorizes “agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce” as commercial disputes. The Court had to decide if a statutory eviction suit automatically triggered this definition merely because the property involved was commercial.
The High Court’s Reasoning and Verdict The High Court dismissed the tenant’s revision and upheld the Trial Court’s decision, declaring the eviction suit maintainable before the regular Civil Court.
The Court observed that the landlord was not seeking to enforce or claim a breach of any specific written or oral lease agreement. Instead, the landlord filed the suit simpliciter to exercise statutory eviction rights and grounds provided under Section 12(1)(a)(b)(h)(o) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961. Because the bundle of facts comprising the cause of action did not emanate from a contract breach, the precondition for applying the Commercial Courts Act was absent.
Key Precedents Relied Upon
The Hon’ble High Court based its decision on a strict interpretation of the law, supported by several important judgments:
- Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. K.S. Infraspace LLP and Another, (2020) 15 SCC 585: The Supreme Court of India ruled that the Commercial Courts Act must be strictly construed to fulfill its objective of providing speedy disposal for high value commercial disputes. Giving the Act a liberal interpretation would clog the system with ordinary civil suits, defeating its very purpose.
- Deepak Polymers (P) Ltd. v. Anchor Investments (P) Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine Cal 4323: The Calcutta High Court held that when an eviction suit arises out of a statutory right conferred by the Transfer of Property Act, it has no direct nexus with a lease agreement. Therefore, such disputes do not fall under the purview of the Commercial Courts Act.
- Mohit Sadana Vs. Vijay Kumar Goyal, 2025 (3) JLJ 147: A coordinate Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court explicitly stated that merely because a suit shop is used for running a business, an eviction suit does not automatically morph into a commercial dispute.
- Bhopal Fracture Hospital Vs. Savitri Devi Vijaywargiya, 2024 (4) MPLJ 223: Another coordinate Bench judgment which reinforced the necessity of reading Section 2 and Section 12 of the Commercial Courts Act strictly.
While the petitioner relied on the Delhi High Court judgment in Kartar Singh Kochhar v. ICICI Bank Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6987, the Madhya Pradesh High Court chose to follow the strict statutory interpretation mandated by the Supreme Court and its own coordinate Benches.
Key Takeaways for Landlords and Tenants
- Statutory Rights vs. Contractual Disputes: Evictions sought strictly under the statutory grounds of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, belong in regular Civil Courts.
- Property Usage is Not the Sole Factor: The mere fact that an immovable property is a shop used exclusively for trade or commerce does not automatically convert a tenancy dispute into a commercial dispute.
- Strict Interpretation is the Rule: The courts will interpret the jurisdiction of Commercial Courts narrowly to prevent ordinary civil litigation from causing delays in the fast track commercial dispute resolution system.
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.
By Advocate Siddharth Shukla
MP High Court, Supreme Court of India
Practising lawyer at the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Tribunals, with many years of extensive experience in constitutional, criminal, and civil litigation. Dedicated to providing impeccable analytical legal insights and effective representation in high-stakes litigation.
