SRI RAJESH K N v. SRI UMESH K R

SRI RAJESH K N S/O. LATE N. K. NAGABHUSHANA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 846 JAWAHARLAL NEHRU ROAD, BEML LAYOUT 3RD STAGE, RAJA RAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU. (BY SRI. SIBU G., ADVOCATE) AND:

SRI UMESH K R S/O. LATE K. RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

SMT. RAJANI W/O. UMESH. K. R., AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 1098, 5TH STAGE, BEML LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 098. Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NANJA REDDY P N., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED APRIL 08, 2024, OF THE LEARNED XXIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:42989 WP No. 18738 of 2024 30), IN OS NO. 8170/2019 (ANNEXURE-A), AND TRANSFER THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SUIT TO THE DESIGNATED COMMERCIAL COURT, AT BENGALURU BY ALLOWING THE INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION BEARING NO. 5, FILED BY THE PETITIONER AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The defendant in O.S No.8170/2019 on the file of XXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore has filed this petition challenging an order dated 08.04.2024, by which it rejected an application under Section 15 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (henceforth referred to as 'Courts Act, 2015') read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, to transfer the suit to the designated Commercial Court.

2. The suit in O.S No.8170/2019 was filed for ejectment of defendant. The suit was contested by the defendant by filing his written statement on 05.04.2021. The defendants did not arise any dispute regarding the jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit. After the Trial was fixed and the plaintiff was examined, the defendant filed the instant - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:42989 WP No. 18738 of 2024 application to transfer the suit to the Commercial Court. The application was opposed by the plaintiff contending that dispute was not a commercial dispute as defined under Section 2 (1) (h) of the Courts Act, 2015. The Trial Court after considering the contention urged, rejected the application in terms of the impugned order by relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Ambala Sarabhai Enterprises Vs. K.S. Infraspace LLP Limited [(2020) 15 SCC 585] and held that there was nothing to show that the property was let out for commercial purpose or activity. Being aggrieved by the said order, the defendant is before this Court.

Learned counsel for the defendant contended that the suit property was leased out to defendants for commercial purposes and therefore, the subject matter of the suit was property that was let out for commercial activity. Hence he contends that the suit ought to have been transferred to the commercial court in view of Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Courts Act, 2015.

Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that there is no commerce or trade between the - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:42989 WP No. 18738 of 2024 plaintiff and defendants. He contends that premises is not let out to the defendants for commercial activities. He further contends that, since there is no trade or commerce between the plaintiffs and the defendant, the question of suit being treated as commercial dispute does not arise.

I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the plaintiff and learned counsel for the defendants.

The suit filed by the plaintiffs is on the premise that they let out the premises to defendant. The defendant in the written statement contended that it was let out for commercial purposes. There is nothing on record to show that the premises were let out for commercial purpose. Be that as it may, the suit property was not a subject matter of trade or commerce between the plaintiffs and the defendant, therefore, in the strict sense, the suit did not relate to an agreement concerning an immovable property used exclusively for trade or commerce. In that view of the matter, the Trial Court has rightly held that the suit for ejectment cannot be tried as commercial dispute before the Commercial Court. - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:42989 WP No. 18738 of 2024

Therefore, there is no error committed by the Trial Court in passing the impugned order and it does not warrant interference.

Hence, the petition lacks merit and is dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25