$~59 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010315192026 + C.R.P. 204/2026 & CM APPL. 45905/2026 ANSHU GOYAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Naveen Goyal, Advocate versus DINESH YADAV ALIAS DINESH KUMAR .....Respondent Through: Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL O R D E R % 07.08.2026 1. This petition has been filed assailing order dated 28th April 2026 passed by the District Judge, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter, ‘Trial Court’), in CS 516/2024, whereby an application filed by petitioner/ defendant under Order VII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’), contending that the issue in the civil suit relates to a lease agreement concerning commercial premises, i.e. a shop, and therefore, the suit ought to be transferred to Commercial Court, was dismissed. 2. By way of the impugned order, Trial Court stated that the suit pertains to enforcement of an agreement relating to reconstruction and re-delivery of possession of tenanted premises and, at that stage, it cannot be held that the dispute falls within the ambit of a commercial dispute, when the property has not yet been put to actual commercial use pursuant to the lease agreement. 3. Mr. Naveen Goyal, counsel for petitioner, contends that the plaint itself states, in paragraph 1, that respondent/plaintiff is a tenant of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2026 at 12:12:27 petitioner/defendant in respect of a shop, and that the tenancy has been in existence since 1965. The lease agreement dated 15th December 2021 also records the same. 4. Mr. Manish Kumar, counsel for respondent/plaintiff, relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. v. K.S. Infraspace LLP, (2020) 15 SCC 585. He particularly relies on paragraph 37 of the said judgment which is extracted as under for reference: “37. A dispute relating to immovable property per se may not be a commercial dispute. But it becomes a commercial dispute, if it falls under sub-clause (vii) of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act viz. “the agreements relating to immovable property used exclusively in trade or commerce”. The words “used exclusively in trade or commerce” are to be interpreted purposefully. The word “used” denotes “actually used” and it cannot be either “ready for use” or “likely to be used” or “to be used”. It should be “actually used”. Such a wide interpretation would defeat the objects of the Act and the fast tracking procedure discussed above.” 5. Accordingly, Mr. Manish Kumar contends that since they had filed a suit for specific performance, the property was not actually being used but was “likely to be used”, which will not come under the purview of Section 2 (1) (c) (vii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. 6. To counter this, Mr. Goyal, draws attention of the Court to the plaint, wherein respondent/ plaintiff himself states that they were tenants of petitioner/ defendant shop at Krishna Nagar and have been paying rent of Rs. 10,000/- since 1965. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2026 at 12:12:27 7. Subsequently, in 2021, there was a proposal to reconstruct the shop and defendant to shift his business to some other shop for a short while. However, since the possession was not granted later, the suit for specific performance was filed. 8. Having perused the plaint, the Court does not agree with the submission of counsel for respondent/plaintiff that the suit premises fall within the category of premises ‘likely to be used’, particularly when the facts as narrated in the plaint already advert to the property being a commercial property since 1965 and being used by respondent/ plaintiff himself. 9. The question of the suit premises being intended for future use is not an aspect that arises in the facts of the present case. 10. The decision in Ambalal (supra) was rendered in the context of a suit for specific performance relating to the grant of plots on lease by the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and their subsequent development by providing infrastructural facilities and sub-plotting them. The facts of this case are distinguishable. 11. Petition is allowed and, is, accordingly disposed of. The impugned order is set aside. 12. Accordingly, the matter is referred to the Commercial Courts for further adjudication. 13. List before the Trial Court on 01st September 2026. 14. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J AUGUST 7, 2026/RK/zb This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2026 at 12:12:27