Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3506 (ALL)

MOHAMMAD NAIM v. RAVI PRAKASH CHAURASIA

2010-11-15

ARUN TANDON

body2010
JUDGMENT HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J. - THIS WRIT PETITION IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 6.09.2010 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, COURT NO. 14, KANPUR NAGAR, IN RENT APPEAL NO. 117 OF 2009 AS ALSO AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY DATED 30.09.2009 PASSED IN RENT CASE NO. 3 OF 2004, WHEREBY THE PREMISES NO. 52/43B, NEW DAL MANDI, NAYAGANJ, KANPUR NAGAR HAS BEEN RELEASED IN FAVOUR OF THE LANDLORD FOR HIS PERSONAL USE. 2. THE ONLY GROUND PRESSED BEFORE THIS COURT IS THAT THE LANDLORD IS REGISTERED AS AN ADVOCATE WITH THE BAR COUNCIL OF UTTAR PRADESH AND THEREFORE HIS RELEASE APPLICATION FOR CARRYING THE BUSINESS OF HOTEL AND RESTAURANT COULD NOT LEGALLY GRANTED. 3. COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT LANDLORD IN REPLY SUBMITS THAT THE ADVOCATES PRACTICING LICENCE HAS ALREADY BEEN SURRENDERED BY THE LANDLORD AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO BAR TO HIS BEING ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS. 4. I HAVE HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS OF THE WRIT PETITION. 5. I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ADVOCATES ACT, 1961 REGULATES THE RIGHT TO PRACTICE IN A COURT OF LAW AND IT PROVIDES THAT NO PERSON ENGAGED IN ANY OTHER PROFESSION/BUSINESS WOULD BE ENTITLED TO PRACTICE AS AN ADVOCATE. SUCH BAR ON THE PRACTICE AS AN ADVOCATE UNDER THE ADVOCATES ACT CANNOT BE READ IN A MANNER TO INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHT OF A LANDLORD TO GET THE PREMISES VACATED FOR HIS PERSONAL USE FOR CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS. IF A LANDLORD GETS A PREMISES VACATED AND STARTING HIS BUSINESS, THEN IT CAN BE A CAUSE FOR MAKING A COMPLAINT TO THE BAR COUNCIL FOR SUCH A PERSON BEING RESTRAINED FROM PRACTICING AS AN ADVOCATE. NO PERSON CAN MAKE A COMPLAINT TO THE BAR COUNCIL FOR RESTRAINING A PERSON FROM CARRYING ON HIS BUSINESS. THE BAR COUNCIL IN A GIVEN CASE MAY RESTRAIN A PERSON FROM PRACTICING ANY FURTHER AS AN ADVOCATE BUT CANNOT RESTRAIN HIM FROM CARRYING ON HIS BUSINESS. EVEN OTHERWISE, HAVING REGARD TO THE STATEMENT MADE ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT THAT SUCH LICENCE OF AN ADVOCATE HAS ALREADY BEEN SURRENDERED, THIS COURT FINDS NO GOOD GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES, WHICH IS OTHERWISE BASED ON APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD. 6. WRIT PETITION IS DISMISSED. 7. EVEN OTHERWISE, HAVING REGARD TO THE STATEMENT MADE ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT THAT SUCH LICENCE OF AN ADVOCATE HAS ALREADY BEEN SURRENDERED, THIS COURT FINDS NO GOOD GROUND TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES, WHICH IS OTHERWISE BASED ON APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD. 6. WRIT PETITION IS DISMISSED. 7. AT THIS STAGE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER MADE A REQUEST THAT A REASONABLE TIME MAY BE RANTED TO VACATE THE PREMISES. IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT SIX MONTHS TIME WOULD BE JUST AND EQUITABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 8. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS PROVIDED THAT THE PETITIONER SHALL NOT BE EVICTED FROM THE PREMISES TILL 15TH MAY, 2011 PROVIDED (A) HE FILES AN AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM TODAY CATEGORICALLY STATING THAT HE SHALL HANDOVER PEACEFUL POSSESSION OF THE PREMISES TO THE LANDLORD ON OR BEFORE 15TH MAY, 2011 AND (B) HE DEPOSITS ENTIRE RENT, WHICH MAY BE DUE FOR USE OF THE PREMISES UP TO 15TH MAY, 2011, ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT THROUGH BANK DRAFT IN FAVOUR OF THE LANDLORD. 9. THE DRAFT SO DEPOSITED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE LANDLORD FOR ENCASHMENT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT PETITIONER SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THIS ORDER.