Advocates’ Offices In Residential Premises Cannot Be Treated As Commercial Activity; Madhya Pradesh High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench of Justice G.S. Ahluwalia, on Tuesday (January 13), allowed a landlord’s eviction claim over a tenanted room in a residential house, holding that an advocate running an office from such premises cannot be treated as carrying on a commercial activity. The dispute arose from a landlord–tenant relationship in which the tenant, an advocate, used the room as an office and was alleged to have defaulted on rent while the landlord sought possession for residential need. Setting aside the contrary approach taken by the courts below, the High Court decreed eviction on the grounds accepted by it and directed the tenant to vacate the room within one month, failing which the landlord could proceed with execution.
The dispute arose from a suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent filed by the owner of a residential house against a tenant occupying one room in the premises. The room had been let out on a monthly tenancy, with the landlord asserting that the agreed rent included a fixed amount towards electricity charges. The tenant used the room as an office and contested the rate of rent, asserting that the agreed rent and electricity charges were substantially lower.
The landlord sought eviction on the grounds of default in payment of rent, nuisance, and bona fide residential requirement for use by a family member. It was pleaded that rent had not been paid regularly after a particular period and that repeated attempts to tender partial rent were not in accordance with the agreed terms. The tenant denied default and disputed the rate of rent, contending that payments were being made at the correct rate.
The Trial Court recorded findings in favour of the landlord on arrears of rent and bona fide requirement but refused eviction on the premise that the premises had been let for non-residential use. Cross appeals were filed before the first appellate court, which reversed certain findings of the Trial Court. The matter thereafter reached the High Court in second appeal.
The Court first examined the maintainability of an appeal filed solely against findings. It observed that “appeal under Section 96 of CPC would lie from every decree passed by the Court and not otherwise” and “decree and findings are two different aspects and cannot be equated with each other.”
The Court further recorded that “if the respondent/defendant was aggrieved by the findings recorded by the Trial Court, then in absence of a decree against him, he had only two options” and that filing an independent appeal was impermissible. It held that “the appeal filed by respondent/defendant… was not maintainable.”
On the issue whether running an advocate’s office amounts to a commercial activity, the Court observed that “the undisputed fact is that the room in question is situated in a residential building and not in a commercial building.” Relying on precedent, the Court stated that “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.”
With regard to default in payment of rent, the Court noted prolonged non-deposit of rent during the pendency of proceedings. It recorded that “no reason has been assigned by defendant for not depositing the rent for a period of 25 months.” The explanation offered was found unsatisfactory, and the Court observed that “deciding not to deposit the rent by taking a decision on his own cannot be said to be a bona fide reason.”
The Court also observed that “any default in deposit of rent during the pendency of appeal cannot be condoned” and found that statutory protection against eviction was unavailable due to non-compliance with mandatory deposit requirements.
Finally, the Court recorded that the Trial Court had committed an error in refusing eviction despite proved default, stating that “whether the suit premises was let out for residential purposes or for non-residential purposes would not make any difference when the Trial Court had come to a conclusion that the defendant is in arrears of rent.”
The Court directed that “the suit filed by plaintiff is hereby decreed and a decree under Sections 12(1)(a) and 12(1)(e) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act is passed against the respondent/defendant.”
The respondent/defendant is directed to vacate the suit room within a period of one month from today.” In the event of non-compliance, the execution proceedings be initiated and “the Executing Court must ensure that the execution proceedings are finally decided within a period of six months from the date of initiation.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant/Plaintiff: Mr. Abhishek Singh Bhadauria, Advocate
For the Respondent/Defendant: Mr. Vikas Singhal, Advocate
Case Title: Anil Kumar Kushwah v. Anil Kumar Gupta
Neutral Citation: 2026: MPHC-GWL:1326
Case Number: Second Appeal No. 235 of 2010
Bench: Justice G.S. Ahluwalia
