ORDER : Basant Balaji J. M/s.Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd has filed this Transfer Petition challenging Ext.P3 order of the Munsiff’s court, Perumbavooor in I.A. No.5 of 2021 in O.S. No.407 of 2017. It is a petition filed under Section 15(2) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short 'the Act') read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure to transfer a suit to the Commercial Court. The learned Munsiff, by Ext.P3 order dismissed petition holding that the dispute involved in the suit will not come under the purview of Section 2(c)(vii) of the Act. 2. Respondent Nos.1 to 6 filed O.S. No.407 of 2017 before the Musniff’s Court, Perumbavoor for a decree declaring the termination of lease and recovery of possession of the lease and to direct the defendants to give vacant possession of the plaint ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties to the plaintiffs and for a mandatory injunction decree to remove the underground fuel tanks, fuel discharging purpose and such other structures erected by the defendants in the plaint schedule property. The damage at the rate of Rs.13,817/- per month for the unauthorized use and occupation of the plaint ‘A’ schedule and damages at the rate of Rs.12,468/- per month for unauthorized use and occupation of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property was also sought for. A permanent prohibitory injunction for transferring or assigning the above said 31.755 cents of property to a third party was one of the reliefs claimed in the plaint. 3. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.5 of 2021 to transfer the suit to the Commercial court of the District in accordance with Section 15(2) of the Act, 2015. The learned Munsiff after hearing parties passed Ext.P3 declining to transfer the suit to the Commercial court. 4. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the plaint schedule premises is being used exclusively for the purpose of trade and commerce and therefore, it is covered under the definition of commercial dispute as envisaged under section 2(c)(vii) of the Act. The petitioner is running a petrol outlet in the plaint schedule property. The lease agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondents is that of a commercial purpose. The petitioner is in possession of the plaint schedule properties on the basis of the registered lease deed which permits the petitioner to install equipment to run a petrol retail outlet. The petitioner is running a petrol outlet in the plaint schedule property. The lease agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondents is that of a commercial purpose. The petitioner is in possession of the plaint schedule properties on the basis of the registered lease deed which permits the petitioner to install equipment to run a petrol retail outlet. He contended that as per Section 6 of the Act, the commercial courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits and applications relating to a commercial dispute of ‘specified value’ arising out of the entire territory of the State over which it has been vested territorial jurisdiction. Moreover, determination of Specified value is as per Section 12 of the Act. It states that when the relief sought in the suit relates to immovable property or to a right therein, the market value of the immovable property as on the date of value of the suit has to be taken into account. In the present suit, the court fee payable is as per the market value of the property as on the presentation of the suit, which the plaintiffs have not done and once the market value is determined it will be over Rs.3,00,000/- as per Section 2(1)(i) of the Act. Hence, the Munsiff court ought to have allowed the Transfer Petition and allowed transfer the suit to the commercial court. 5. The counsel for the respondents submits that a simple suit for termination of lease is the subject matter in the issue. There is no commercial dispute between the petitioner and the respondents. Though the activity conducted by the petitioner may be commercial, it will not bind the respondents and it cannot be said that there is commercial activity between the petitioner and the respondents. The valuation in the suit is on the basis of the rent payable for a year and hence, the suit is properly valued and the court fee payable is less than the specified value as stated in the Act. 6. Heard. 7. Section 2(1)(i) of the Act, defines commercial disputes in the Act. Sub Section 2(viii) of the Act relates to agreement relating to immovable property used exclusively in a trade or commerce. 6. Heard. 7. Section 2(1)(i) of the Act, defines commercial disputes in the Act. Sub Section 2(viii) of the Act relates to agreement relating to immovable property used exclusively in a trade or commerce. Section 2(1)(i) of the Act defines specified value in relation to a commercial dispute which shall mean the value of the subject matter in respect of the suit as determined in accordance with Section 12 of the Act (which shall not be less than Rs.3 lakh at the time of the presentation of the plaint or such higher value as may be notified by the Central Government.) So two conditions which has been specified for a suit to fall under the jurisdiction of commercial court are, (i) which shall a commercial suit within the meaning of Section 2(1)(c) of the Act, and (ii) such commercial dispute are of a specified value as per Section 2(i) of the Act. For determining such specified value Section 12 of the Act has to be taken note of. Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, relates to determination of specified value in respect of immovable property or a right to therein. Section 12(1)(c) of the Act reads as follows : “12. Determination of Specified Value: (1) xxxx (a) xxx xxxx (b) xxx xxxx (c) where the relief sought in a suit, appeal or application relates to immovable property or to a right therein, the market value of the immovable property, as on the date of filing of the suit, appeal or application, as the case may be, shall be taken into account for determining Specified Value.” 8. As per sub clause (c) above, when the reliefs sought in the suit relates to immovable property or to a right there in the market value of the immovable property as on the date of filing of the suit has to be taken into account for determining the specified value. The present suit is for declaring the termination of lease, deliver vacant possession and for damages for use and unauthorized use and occupation of plaint schedule properties. A simple suit for termination of lease will not fall under sub section (c) of Section 12(1) of the Act, as there is no determination of any right. In a suit for termination of lease the court fee has to be calculated based on the annual rent alone. A simple suit for termination of lease will not fall under sub section (c) of Section 12(1) of the Act, as there is no determination of any right. In a suit for termination of lease the court fee has to be calculated based on the annual rent alone. In view of the matter the plaintiffs was right in determining the court fee on the basis of Section 43(1)(d) of the Kerala Court - Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959. 9. The High court of Delhi in Soni Dave v. Trans Asian Industries Expositions Private Limited (2016 KCHC 4288) had the occasion to examine a similar issue. The Judge held in paragraph Nos.25 and 26 thus : “25. In my view S.12 of the Commercial Courts Act providing for determination of specified value as defined in S.2(i) thereof is not intended to provide for a new mode of determining the valuation of the suit for the purpose of jurisdiction and court fees. It would be incongruous to hold that while for the purpose of payment of court fees the deemed fiction provided in the Court Fees Act for determining the value of the property is to apply but not for determining the specified value under the Commercial Courts Act. 26. In my opinion S.12 of the Commercial Courts Act has to be read harmoniously with the Court Fees Act and the Suits Valuation Act and reading so, the specified value of a suit where the relief sought relates to immovable property or to a right thereunder has to be according to the market value of the immovable property only in such suits where the suit as per the Court Fees Act and / or the Suits Valuation Act has to be valued on the market value of the property and not where as per the Court Fees Act and the Suits Valuation Act the valuation of a suit even if for the relief of recovery of immovable property or a right therein is required to be anything other than market value as is the case in a suit by a landlord for recovery of possession of immovable property from a tenant.” 10. The plaintiff, being the dominos litis, has chosen the court definitely having jurisdiction and determined the valuation of the suit for the purpose of the reliefs prayed for. The plaintiff, being the dominos litis, has chosen the court definitely having jurisdiction and determined the valuation of the suit for the purpose of the reliefs prayed for. The defendant cannot be successful unless the court, now trying the lis, is without jurisdiction. 11. The High Court of Karnataka in Fine Footwear Private Limited v. Skechers USA Inc. (2019 SCC Online Kar 1024), held thus : “8. In KALLA YADAGIRI v. KHOTADAL REDILIY, 1999 (1) ALT 211 FB, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has crisply stated as under: What decides the jurisdiction with regard to a particular case is the nature of claim as brought. The plaintiff is bound to assess the relief he claims on the basis of the benefit he seeks to obtain by filing the suit... In a suit for injunction simplicitor, it is the value of the relief claimed and not on the value of the property involved... suffice it to say that the proper method is to value for the Court fees first and take that value for the purpose of jurisdiction, for, value will control the matter for Court fees and jurisdiction. It is not the value of the thing affected that settles the value of relief sought, but it is the value of the relief sought, which determines the jurisdiction “Subject matter” is not the same thing as property. Subject matter is the substance for adjudication and it has reference to the right which the plaintiff seeks to enforce and the valuation of the suit depends upon the value of the subject matter thereof...” 12. In the present case, the lease was for a commercial purpose, second condition which has been specified for bringing the suit within the purview of a commercial dispute i.e., specified value is a lacking. The suit is value at Rs.58,000/- by the plaintiff taking note the monthly rent of the lease. Section 43 of the Kerala Court - Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 defines but the court fee has to be calculated in a suit between landlord and tenant. Sub clause (b) relates to recovery of immovable property from which a tenant has been illegally ejected by the landlord. Section 43 of the Kerala Court - Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 defines but the court fee has to be calculated in a suit between landlord and tenant. Sub clause (b) relates to recovery of immovable property from which a tenant has been illegally ejected by the landlord. Sub section 2 specifies that for a recovery of immovable property from a tenant including a tenant holding over after the termination of the tenancy fee shall be computed from the premium, if any, and on the rent payable for the year next before the date of presentation of the suit. The plaintiff has filed a suit for termination of the lease and hence, the valuation adopted by the plaintiff is in accordance with Section 43 of the Kerala Court - Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959. The valuation is less than the specified value as stated in section 2(1)(i) of the Act, hence the present suit will not qualify to be a commercial dispute to be tried by a commercial court. In order to invoke Section 15(1) of the Act, the two conditions namely, (1) a commercial dispute and (2) of a specified value have to be satisfied. In this case, the second condition is not satisfied and hence, we hold that the present suit does not qualify to be a suit within the definition of 'commercial dispute' to be tried by a commercial court. The order of the Munsiff court dismissing the petition to transfer under Section 15(2) of the Act, is in order. Accordingly, the Transfer Petition fails and it is dismissed.