AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:
Since FMAT 298 of 2026 and FMAT 299 of 2026 involve similar questions, both are taken up for hearing together. However, separate judgments are being passed in respect of each of the appeals.
Affidavit of service filed today be kept on record.
The present challenge has been preferred against an ad-interim order of injunction passed in connection with a suit, inter alia for a decree of declaration that the plaintiff/respondent no. 1 is a monthly tenant in respect of the suit property and for permanent injunction protecting the peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property.
Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the suit is palpably not maintainable before the ordinary civil court which passed the impugned order, in view of the dispute involved in the suit being a “commercial dispute” within the contemplation of Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Learned senior counsel places particular reliance on paragraphs 1 and 6 of the plaint, wherein it has been categorically pleaded that the plaintiff is a monthly tenant in respect of a commercial office space at the suit premises and that the tenancy pleaded is a commercial tenancy.
It is argued that even without going into the merits of the matter, since the averments made in the injunction application are disputed on facts by the appellant, fact remains that if the dispute is held to be a commercial dispute, the concerned court taking up such matter will be determined by the “specified value” of the subject property as stipulated in Section 12 of the 2015 Act and not by the valuation of the suit.
It is submitted that the suit property is situated at Premises No. 11, Dr. U. N. Brahmachari Street, under Police Station – Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700017, which is a posh and prime location in the heart of the city of Kolkata, and as such, the valuation of the suit property will definitely be much above the specified value stipulated for the City Civil Court at Calcutta, which starts from Rs.3 lakhs and is vested exclusively in the City Civil Court up to Rs.10 lakhs. From Rs.10 lakhs till Rs.1 crore, the City Civil Court and this Court have concurrent jurisdiction. If the valuation exceeds Rs.1 crore, the matter is to be filed before the Commercial Division of this Court exclusively.
Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order suffers from palpable jurisdictional error.
We admit the appeal and take it up for hearing in view of the short points involved.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find substance in the contention of the appellant since, as per the averments in the plaint and the injunction application of the plaintiffs/respondent no. 1 itself, the suit pertains to an alleged tenancy agreement in respect of a commercial property and/or pertains to a commercial tenancy. Thus, the provisions of Section 2(1)(c)(vii), which bring all commercial disputes arising out of agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce under the umbrella of the 2015 Act, is squarely attracted.
From the Notification dated March 20, 2020 placed before us, we also find that in case of commercial courts within the territorial jurisdiction of the City Civil Court at Calcutta, of an amount not less than Rs.3 lakhs and not more than Rs.10 lakhs, the City Civil Court has exclusive jurisdiction, and regarding matters exceeding Rs.10 lakhs but not exceeding Rs.1 crore, it has concurrent jurisdiction with the Commercial Division of this Court, whereas in case of the Commercial Division of the High Court, Calcutta, the jurisdiction starts from Rs.10 lakhs upwards.
In such view of the matter, the impugned order suffers from lack of subject matter/inherent jurisdiction of the trial court, which is an ordinary civil court and not a commercial court, and accordingly is vitiated on such count alone. In fact, the suit itself is also couched as an ordinary civil suit and not as a commercial suit.
Hence, FMAT 298 of 2026 is allowed on contest against the respondent no. 1 and ex parte against the proforma respondent no. 2, thereby setting aside the impugned order dated July 27, 2026 passed by the learned Judge, Sixth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Title Suit no. 1570 of 2026.
It is made clear that the above findings are tentative in nature and it will be open to the learned Trial Judge to decide the injunction application pending before it independently and in accordance with law.
Consequentially, CAN 1 of 2026 is disposed of as well.
No order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of requisite formalities.
I Agree.