Latest News
Back
HC: A lawyer’s chamber in residential property doesn’t come under “Commercial” usage unlike Law Firms.
In re Arup Sarkar v. CESC Ltd. & Ors., where the petitioner is a practising advocate, had setup an chamber where he resides in an multi-stored building. When the petitioner had approached the CESC Ltd, was denied the new electric connection under the “Domestic(urban)” category. Thus the petitioner approached the HC arguing that the lawyer profession does not come under the ambit of a commercial activity. The CESC argued that the issue was not in relation to the classification of the premises but the use of electricity and the tariff of the said use. And it also mentioned explicitly that a lawyer office falls under the category of “Non-Domestic (Urban)” usage hence the quotation was sent under “Commercial (Urban)” usage since the categorization of tariffs was limited only to two categories i.e. Domestic(urban) and Commercial(urban) usages only.
Justice Shekhar B. Saraf observed that as held by the hon’ble SC in Chairman, M.P. Electricity Board & Ors. v. Shiv Narayan & Anr., as argued by the CESC, the lawyer profession does not comes under the ambit of “Domestic(Urban)” usage. But Justice Saraf mentioned expressly that the category of “non-domestic” doesnot automatically mean “commercial”. In the words of Justice Saraf "The words "nondomestic" and "commercial" are not fungible, and therefore, cannot be interchanged," And the HC made it clear that legal activity cannot be termed as a commercial activity.
"...a professional activity involves a certain amount of skill as against commercial activity which in a matter of business is paramount. These two were held to be distinct concepts; while in commercial activity one works for gain or profit, as against this, in profession, one works for his livelihood. Accordingly, there is a fundamental distinction between a professional activity of a commercial character, and therefore, it is crystal clear that the legal profession would not fall under the category of 'Commercial (Urban)'." was clarified by Justice Saraf. Dependence was placed on the Apex Court's decision in Kanubhai Shantilal Pandya & Ors. v. Vadodara Municipal Corporation.
This is "distinguishable from law firms and proprietorship firms that are having offices in commercial spaces dealing with litigation and non-litigation work" HC held. "The chambers of a litigation lawyer are clearly used for his livelihood, and accordingly, the benefit of doubt is required to be given to such a petitioner placing him in the category of the "Domestic (Urban)"." Thus in this matter the HC placed the petitioner under the category of “Domestic(urban)” and direction was given to the CESC Ltd to give the petitioner a new electric connection under the said category within 2 weeks.
