The Madhya Pradesh High Court has made a significant ruling. It states that an advocate's office operating from a residential building cannot be classified as a commercial activity. This decision came during a hearing on a landlord's plea for eviction and recovery of rent arrears.
Court's Clear Stance on Residential Use
Justice G S Ahluwalia delivered the order. He emphasized a key point. The suit room sits in a residential building, not a commercial one. Therefore, calling an advocate's office there a commercial activity stretches imagination too far.
The court found the trial court made a material illegality. It wrongly dismissed the eviction suit. The dismissal was based on the idea that an advocate's office is commercial while the suit was for residential purposes.
Background of the Dispute
The landlord filed the plea against orders from 2009 and 2010. He sought eviction of the advocate tenant from a single room. The room is on the ground floor of his house. The landlord needed the space for his son, an engineering student, for bona fide study needs.
The advocate became a tenant in 2001. The monthly rent was Rs 500, with an additional Rs 125 for electricity. This brought the total to Rs 625 per month. The tenant used the room as his office.
Initially, the owner gave the room for six months. The tenant assured he would vacate after finding suitable accommodation. However, the owner accused the tenant of taking a U-turn. The tenant repeatedly refused to leave, citing an inability to find another place.
Escalation of the Conflict
In 2002, the owner requested the tenant to vacate. This led to a quarrel. The tenant allegedly abused the plaintiff and pushed him out of the room. Rent payments continued until November 2002. After that, the tenant stopped depositing rent.
In December, the tenant sent rent, but the owner returned it. The owner stated the defendant had not paid the settled amount. By April 2003, the owner asked again for vacation of the room and payment of outstanding dues.
The tenant then insisted the owner should alienate the room to him. When the landlord refused, the tenant allegedly said the landlord would never get the room vacated. The advocate tenant also filed complaints against the landlord. These included allegations about disconnecting electricity.
Police investigation found no disruption in electricity. Consequently, police took no action. The tenant later filed a criminal complaint, which resulted in the landlord's acquittal.
Court's Findings and Order
The court noted a glaring mistake by the trial court. If it believed the suit was for residential purposes against a commercial activity, it could have refused a decree under Section 12(1)(e) of the MP Accommodation Control Act. However, the purpose of letting the premises does not matter here.
The trial court had concluded the defendant was in arrears of rent. This made him liable for eviction under Section 12(1)(a) of the Act. The landlord claimed mental agony under Section 12(1)(c) due to the advocate's actions.
Justice Ahluwalia decreed the suit filed by the landlord. A decree under relevant sections of the MP Accommodation Control Act was passed against the tenant. The court directed the tenant to vacate the room within one month from January 13.
If the tenant fails to comply, the landlord can initiate execution proceedings to get the room vacated. The court also addressed the recovery of arrears. The landlord sought Rs 5625 in arrears and future rent at Rs 625 per month.
This ruling clarifies the legal distinction between residential and commercial use. It reinforces that an advocate's professional work from a home does not automatically turn the space into a commercial establishment. The decision supports landlords' rights in similar disputes over residential premises.
