Ms. Arundhati Katju, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Anish Chawla and Ms. Shaaivi Shukla and v. PRAVEEN KUMAR RATHORE

Judgment

1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [hereinafter referred to as “CPC”] impugning the order dated 14.08.2024 [hereinafter referred to as “Impugned Order”] passed by the learned District Judge-03, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Ex No. 461/2022 captioned Dr. Praveen Kumar Rathore v. LA Mercy Jean. By the Impugned Order, the learned Trial Court has found that there is no merit in the objections filed by the Petitioner/Judgment Debtor No. 2 and dismissed the Application under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the CPC.

2. At the outset, it is apposite to set out the directions passed by this Court on 07.04.2025: “1. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Impugned Order has been passed disposing of the objections filed by the Petitioner in execution proceedings i.e., Ex. No. 461/2022 captioned Dr. Praveen Kumar Rathore v. LA Mercy Jean. It is contended that the execution proceedings emanate from an ex-parte decree passed in a suit filed by the Respondent against the Petitioner. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:13.06.2025 13:43:48 C.R.P. 276/2024

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that one of the objections taken by the Petitioner before the learned Executing Court was that the Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute in view of the fact that the suit has been filed by the Respondent is a commercial suit. Reliance is placed on Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the explanation thereof. In addition, reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Virender Kumar v. Rekha Bhayana; 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2678.

3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent requests for some time to examine these contentions and make submissions in the matter.

4. At his request, list on 23.05.2025.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner also submits that the Impugned Order directs that warrants of attachment be executed and has appointed a Bailiff in the matter.

6. In these circumstances, let the Impugned Order shall remain in abeyance until the next date of hearing.”

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner makes two submissions. Relying on the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 01.04.2022 [hereinafter referred to “Impugned Judgment and Decree”], she submits that there is no

dispute that the agreement that was entered into between the parties was an agreement for rent in respect of an immovable property being a shop in the Karol Bagh area of Delhi. Reliance in this regard is drawn to the extract of the Impugned Judgment and Decree which refers to this aspect: “6. The present is a suit filed by plaintiff against the defendant who is his tenant, for recovery of possession and arrears of rent. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is landlord of property bearing no. 6161/1, Block I-B, Khasra No. 4059/176, Gali no.4 & 5, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi- 110005. As plaintiff is a Dr. and busy in his work outside Delhi he had authorized one Dr. Shantanu Mandal to look after the property of plaintiff through GPA.

7. Defendant had talked to plaintiff for the purpose of taking the suit premises bearing shop no. 7 of property bearing no. 6161/1, Block I-B. Khasra No. 4059/176, Gali no.4 & 5, Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi- 110005 on rent.

12. Further the property is situated in Karol Bagh and is commercial property. Considering the location of the property the rent of Rs.95,000 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:13.06.2025 13:43:48 C.R.P. 276/2024 which is mentioned in the plaint appears to be genuine though there is no rent agreement in writing on record. In the circumstances, in view of the specific pleadings being made that defendant has not made payment of any rent since October 2016, and the present suit was filed in the year 2018, hence plaintiff is entitled to recovery of rent from October 2016 till 16.06.2020 when possession was received by plaintiff. In the circumstances as plaintiff claimed rent at the rate of Rs.95,000 per month, the same is awarded in favour of plaintiff.

14. In the circumstances, plaintiff is entitled to a decree of arrears of rent/mesne profits at the rate of Rs 95,000 per month from October 2016 till 16.06.2020. Since the property was commercial in nature and is located in the prime area of Karol Bagh, I also award interest @18% p.a. calculated as simple interest from October 2016 till actual payment.” [Emphasis supplied]

3.1 Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act [hereinafter referred to as “CC Act”] and the explanation to the CC Act is clear and unequivocal. It states that the disputes arising out of agreements to be used for trade or commerce, would be a commercial dispute and the provisions of CC Act would be applicable.

3.2 Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the objection that the suit filed by the Respondent/Decree Holder is commercial in nature and that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to try and decide the same was raised by the Petitioner/Judgment Debtor No. 2 before the learned Executing Court and a prayer was made in the Application under Section 47 of the CPC that the Impugned Judgment and Decree be set aside and the same be declared as null and void as well. In this behalf, she seeks to rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sunder Dass v. Ram Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:RAHUL Signing Date:13.06.2025 13:43:48 C.R.P. 276/2024 Prakash1 to submit that where a decree for eviction is a nullity, the Executing Court could declare it to be such and decline to execute it against the Respondent.

4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent, on the other hand, makes two submissions. Firstly, he submits that this Section is only applicable for real estate agents and secondly, that during the pendency of the suit, possession of the tenanted premises was handed back to the Respondent and the only issue of damages and mesne profits remains to be adjudicated which was adjudicated upon by the learned Trial Court.

4.1 Learned Counsel for the Respondent seeks to rely upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited v. K.S. Infraspace LLP and Anr.2, to submit that the Supreme Court has directed that the provisions of the CC Act have to be strictly construed and that every dispute related to commercial immovable property is not a commercial dispute. Learned Counsel for the Respondent further submitted that the Supreme Court has held that merely because the property is likely to be used in trade and business, the same cannot be used as a ground to attract the jurisdiction of CC Act.

4.2 It is however not disputed that what was let out by the Respondent was a shop and that the Petitioner was carrying out his business from the said shop prior to its vacation.

5. It is no longer res integra that the CC Act was enacted as a special legislation for speedy resolution of commercial disputes. The goal of the CC