The Calcutta High Court has stated in crystal clear words that the Profession of a Lawyer cannot be termed as a Commercial Activity. 

The Court took the stand during the hearing of a case titled as Arup Sarkar v. CESC Ltd. & Ors.

It held that the legal profession isn't a commercial activity and hence, the Chambers of a Lawyer in a residential property cannot be categorized as commercial use of the property.

In regard to this, the Court clarified:

"...a professional activity involves a certain amount of skill as against commercial activity which is 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 the profession, one works for his livelihood. Accordingly, there is a fundamental distinction between a professional activity and an activity of a commercial character, and therefore, it is crystal clear that the legal profession would not fall under the category of 'Commercial (Urban)'."

To make the point clear, the Court placed reliance on Apex Court's verdict in Kanubhai Shantilal Pandya & Ors. v. Vadodara Municipal Corporation.

Reliance was placed on the Apex Court's decision in Kanubhai Shantilal Pandya & Ors. v. Vadodara Municipal Corporation.

He then went onto add:

This is "distinguishable from law firms and proprietorship firms that are having offices in commercial spaces dealing with litigation and non-litigation work."

QUESTION RAISED BEFORE THE COURT

'Whether a Lawyer using a domestic space as his Chambers is liable to be charged with a tariff on a commercial basis?'

The petitioner herein who is a practicing Lawyer had set up a Chamber on the ground floor of the multi-storied building where he resides. In the case filed in High Court, he objected to the rejection of his application for a new electric connection for his chamber under the "domestic (urban)" category by the CESC Ltd.

The CESC, on the other hand, contended that the issue in question didn't relate to classification of the premises but, to the use of electricity in premises and the imposition of electricity tariff for the said use.

It was further submitted that the activity of a Lawyer running an office falls under the category of 'non-domestic' use and hence, they had rightly sent a quotation for payment of service charges and security deposit on the basis of a "commercial (urban)" connection.

OBSERVATIONS MADE

Single-Judge Bench of Justice Saraf observed that as held by the Supreme Court in Chairman, M.P. Electricity Board & Ors. v. Shiv Narayan & Anr., and as also argued by the CESC, the legal profession would fall under the category of "non-domestic". However, falling under the category of "non-domestic" wouldn't automatically make the use "commercial".

The Court remarked:

"The words "nondomestic" and "commercial" are not fungible, and therefore, cannot be interchanged,"

The Court then noted that the law on levy of tariffs on "non-domestic" users was unclear and held that, such lack of clarity shouldn't be used to the "detriment" of the Consumer.

The categorization in the tariff of CESC was limited to two categories: (a) Domestic (Urban) and (b) Commercial (Urban).

Justice Saraf clarified that the "entry of "Commercial (Urban)" is not a residual entry, and therefore unless a user is commercial, the rate applicable to a commercial user cannot be charged simpliciter because the profession of lawyer is considered to be a non-domestic use."

He held,

"The chambers of a litigation lawyer are clearly used for his livelihood, and accordingly, the benefit of the doubt is required to be given to such a petitioner placing him in the category of the "Domestic (Urban)"."

The Court then accordingly, held that the space being used by the Petitioner was an extension of his residence for his legal chamber, placing him in the category of the "Domestic (Urban)".

It also directed CESC to provide new electric connection to the Petitioner under the category 'Domestic (Urban)' within a period of two weeks.

The judgement was delivered by Justice B. Saraf on 11-02-2020.

Read Judgement Here:

 

Share this Document :

Picture Source :