Authority: Calcutta High Court, Commercial Division (Hon'ble Justices Debangsu Basak and Md. Shabbar Rashidi)

Order Date: July 9, 2026 (judgment pronounced)

Case Overview

  • Parties: Appellant – Xclusive Inn Private Limited & Ors.; Respondent – Anjana Guha & Ors.
  • Counsel: For appellants – Senior Advocate Aniruddha Chatterjee and team; for respondents – Advocates Anirban Roy, Ashim Kumar Roy, Debjit Basu, Mrinmoy Mukherjee.
  • Filing: Appeal (FAT 270 of 2023) against judgment and decree No. 29 dated July 10, 2023 passed by the Commercial Court at Rajarhat in Title Suit No. 5 of 2021.
  • Nature of Suit: Eviction, recovery of arrears of license fees and mesne profits concerning Schedule B property used as a hotel‑cum‑restaurant‑bar and night‑club.
  • Key Agreements: Lease/tenancy agreement and maintenance agreement dated April 17, 2008; monthly license fee Rs 28,000 and maintenance fee Rs 60,000; both agreements stipulated vacation of the premises by March 16, 2018.
  • Background: Tarun Kumar Guha (original lessee) died on December 28, 2013; his heirs (respondents) filed the suit. The appellants remained in possession beyond March 2018, claiming holding‑over tenancy and paying enhanced rent from January 2021.
  • Value of Suit: Valued at over Rs 30,00,000, satisfying the Specified Value for commercial disputes as per West Bengal notification dated March 20, 2020.
  • Legal Issues Raised:

1. Whether an eviction suit can be classified as a commercial dispute under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

2. Whether the Commercial Court had subject‑matter jurisdiction (value and commercial nature).

3. Whether a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was required before filing the eviction suit.

4. Whether the trial judge correctly exercised powers under Order XIII‑A read with Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC for summary judgment.

  • Authorities Cited:
  • Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. K.S. Infraspace LLP (2020 15 SCC 585)
  • Deepak Polymers Pvt Ltd. v. Anchor Investments Pvt Ltd. (2021 3 ICC 482)
  • T.E. Thomson & Co Ltd. v. Swanalatha Chopra (2024 SCC OnLine Cal 8985) and its Division Bench answer (2025 SCC OnLine Cal 5076)
  • Nopany Investments (P) Ltd. v. Santokii Singh (2008 2 SCC 728)
  • Ashok Kumar Bagga v. Rajvinder Kaur (2021 SCC OnLine Del 2785)
  • Reliance Eminent Trading & Commercial Pvt Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority (2026 SCC OnLine SC 744)
  • Payal Vision Ltd. v. Radhika Choudhary (2012 11 SCC 405)
  • Guidelines from Reliance Eminent Trading & Commercial Private (2026 SCC OnLine SC 744, paragraph 59).
  • Statutory Provisions Discussed: Commercial Courts Act 2015 (Section 2(1)(c)(vii), Section 6, Explanation (a)), Specification of Value (Section 2(1)(i) with Section 12), Transfer of Property Act 1882 (Section 106), Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (Order XIII‑A, Order XII Rule 6).

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the suit indeed involved a commercial dispute because the immovable property was "actually used" for a hotel‑cum‑restaurant‑bar, satisfying both conditions of Section 2(1)(c)(vii).
  • The Specified Value and territorial jurisdiction were met; therefore, the Commercial Court had proper jurisdiction.
  • The filing of the eviction suit itself constituted a notice under Section 106; no separate notice was required, per Nopany Investments precedent.
  • The trial judge correctly applied Order XIII‑A and Order XII Rule 6, and the guidelines for summary judgment were not breached.
  • Consequently, the appeal (FAT 270/2023) is dismissed without any order as to costs, and the decree of eviction and related monetary reliefs remain in force.

Topics: Court Jurisdiction, Eviction & Commercial Dispute