Advocate office in residential building not commercial activity, says Madhya Pradesh High Court

The court added that the trial court committed a “material illegality” by dismissing the suit for eviction merely on the ground that the office of an advocate is a commercial activity, and the suit was filed for residential purposes.

Background

• The house owner filed a plea against the 2009 and 2010 trial court’s order to evict his home by the advocate tenant.
• The petitioner approached the high court for the eviction as well as for the recovery of arrears of rent on the ground floor of his house.
• The advocate was inducted as a tenant of one room situated in the said building in 2001 on a monthly rent of Rs 500 with additional charges of Rs 125 for electricity consumption, i.e., a total amount of Rs 625 per month.
• The other party was using the said room as his office.
• The petitioner owner gave the room for a period of six months and was assured by the tenant that as soon as suitable accommodation is found by him, then he would vacate the suit room within a period of six months.
• The owner accused the tenant of taking a U-turn and every time refused to vacate the room on the grounds that he could not find any suitable accommodation.
• In 2002, when the owner requested the defendant to vacate the suit room, he got into up quarrel and started abusing the plaintiff and pushed him out of the room.
• According to the owner, the tenant paid Rs 625 per month till November 2002 and stopped depositing the rent thereafter.
• In December, the tenant sent rent, but the owner returned it because the defendant had not paid the settled amount.
• In April 2003, the owner again asked the tenant to vacate the room as well as pay the outstanding amount, then the tenant insisted that the owner should alienate the room to him.
• When the landlord refused to do so, the tenant allegedly told the landlord that he will never be able to get the room vacated.
• The advocate tenant also complained against the landlord and his family members because he had tried to disconnect the electricity connection.
• But the police found that the electricity connection was not disrupted, and accordingly, the police did not take any action.
• Thereafter, the tenant advocate filed a criminal complaint, in which the landlord was acquitted.
• The landlord claimed that because of the act of the advocate, he has suffered mental agony which falls within the category of Section 12(1)(c) of the MP Accommodation Control Act.
• Thus, the landlord has filed a plea for eviction as well as for recovery of arrears of rent of Rs 5625, as well as for future monthly rent at the rate of Rs 625.

Findings

• Glaring mistake committed by trial court.
• If it was of the view that since the suit has been filed for residential purposes, whereas the activity of an advocate is a commercial activity, then at the most, it could have refused to grant a decree under Section 12(1)(e) of the MP Accommodation Control Act.
• Whether the suit premises were let out for residential purposes or for non-residential purposes would not make any difference when the trial court had concluded that the defendant was in arrears of rent and liable to be evicted under Section 12(1)(a) of the MP Accommodation Control Act.
• Suit filed by the landlord decreed, and a decree under Sections of the MP Accommodation Control Act is passed against the tenant.
• The tenant directed to vacate the room within a period of one month from January 13, failing which the landlord will be entitled to get it vacated by initiating the execution proceedings.