At, High Court of for the State of Telangana
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD
For the Petitioner: M/s. Herur Associates, Advocates. For the Respondent: Pilix Law Firm, Advocate.
1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 03.02.2021 in I.A.No.5 of 2021 in O.S.No.10 of 2020 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, (FTC) Siddipet (for short, “trial Court”).
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rents of Rs.1,08,21,416.31 Ps., along with interest. The petitioner/defendant has filed I.A.No.5 of 2021 under Order VII Rule 10 r/w. Section 151 CPC., for return of the plaint, on the ground that as the present case is with regard to lease of the premises for the purpose of manufacturing unit as such, the suit ought to be filed before the Commercial Court and no regular suit is maintainable. When the respondent/plaintiff interfered with the possession of the petitioner/defendant, a suit for injunction was filed and while the suit was pending, the respondent/plaintiff had forcibly entered into the premises with unlawful elements and necked out the petitioner/defendant. The petitioner/defendant filed an application for restoration of possession as well as police protection and the same were ordered, however due to the actions of the respondent/plaintiff, the petitioner is unable to utilize the premises. The petitioner/defendant also filed a suit for damages in COS No.1 of 2021 on the file of Commercial Court at Hyderabad and the same is pending.
3. The respondent/plaintiff filed a counter denying the averments stating that the present petition is filed to protract the matter and create litigation and to avoid depositing of arrears of rent, electricity bills, monthly regular rent and future monthly rent. The suit does not fall within the definition of the commercial dispute. The present suit comes under the definition of landlord and tenant, and as such, the Commercial Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between the landlord and tenant and therefore prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. The trial Court, on consideration of the record, declined to accept the plea of the petitioner and dismissed the interlocutory application. Aggrieved thereby, the present CRP is filed.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant submitted that the property which was given on lease for establishment of the plant for the purpose of fabrication of storage tanks and heavy engineering works and the same is categorically stipulated in the lease deed and as such, falls within the definition of the Commercial dispute as per the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 under Section 2(1)(c)(viii) and therefore, the plaint is liable to be returned for filing the same before the Commercial Court.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/defendant has taken the property of the respondent/plaintiff on lease for establishment of plant for fabrication of the storage works and heavy engineering works or any other suitable manufacturing and trading business and the relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant is also not in dispute. Therefore, the purpose of lease in between the parties does not fall under Section 2(1)(c)(i) to (xxii) of Commercial Courts Act and the dispute between the parties is not a commercial dispute and therefore, the Commercial Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. It is not the case of the petitioner/defendant that he is paying rents regularly. Therefore, the respondent/plaintiff has rightly filed the suit for eviction under the provisions of Civil Procedure Code. For whatever purpose the petitioner has taken the property on lease, the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent is nothing but landlord and tenant. The trial Court has passed a just and reasonable order and as such, the said order needs no interference.
7. The dispute between the petitioner and the respondent is purely commercial in nature or not and the learned VI Additional District Judge (FTC), Siddipet has jurisdiction to try and decide is to be decided in the main suit. It is stated that as per the unregistered lease deed, the parties herein are having jural relationship of land lord and tenant alone and do not fall within the definition of the commercial agreement between the parties. Further, there is no specific recital mentioned in the lease deed about c
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
ommerce and trade apart from the lease of premises. Though the contention of the respondent that the petitioner is not paying the electricity and other utility charges as well not paying agreed lease amount, the same was not disputed by the revision petitioner. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall also stand dismissed.