Advocate's Office In Residential Building Not 'Commercial Activity': MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Tuesday (January 13) held that the office of an advocate located in a residential building cannot be treated as a commercial activity.

The bench of Justice GS Ahluwalia observed; 

"As already pointed out, the suit room is not situated in any commercial building but is situated in a residential building, and therefore, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the office of an advocate situated in a residential building can be said to be a commercial activity". 

The appellant, owner of the disputed property, had let out a room to the respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/- with additional charges of Rs. 125/- for electricity consumption, totalling the amount of Rs. 625/- per month. The respondent, an advocate, repeatedly made verbal assurances that he would vacate the premises within six months after finding a suitable alternative accommodation. 

However, later the respondent refused to vacate the premises, citing non-availability of suitable accommodation. In November 2002, when the appellant requested the respondent to vacate the room, the respondent allegedly pushed and abused him. 

In April 2003, the appellant demanded vacation of the premises along with payment of outstanding rent. The respondent allegedly threatened the appellant, asserting that, being an advocate, he could not be forced to vacate the premises. Subsequently, it is alleged that the respondent lodged a false complaint alleging disruption of the electricity connection. Upon verification, the police officers found that the electricity connection had not been disrupted and took no action. The respondent thereafter filed a criminal complaint, which remained pending, in which the appellant was eventually acquitted. 

Claiming that the respondent's actions caused mental agony to the appellant under Section 12 of the MP Accommodation Control Act, 1961, he filed a suit seeking eviction. 

The Trial Court held that the suit premises were bona fidely required by the appellant. However, it dismissed the eviction suit because the premises had been let out for non-residential purposes, whereas eviction was sought on residential grounds.

Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal.

The bench held that the office of an advocate situated in a residential building does not amount to a commercial activity. Consequently, the Trial Court had committed material illegality in dismissing the eviction suit on the ground that the eviction was sought for residential purposes.

Accordingly, the bench decreed the suit in favour of the appellant and passed an eviction decree under Sections 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(e) of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act. 

The respondent was directed to vacate the suit premises within one month, failing which the appellant would be entitled to initiate the execution proceedings. The court further directed that, if execution proceedings are initiated, the Executing Court must ensure their disposal within six months from the date of initiation. 

Thus, the appeal was allowed. 

Case Title: Anil Kumar Kishwah v Anil Kumar Gupta [SA-235-2010]

For Appellant: Advocate Abhisehk Singh Bhadauria

For Respondent: Advocate Vikas Singhal

Click here to read/download the Order