The Madras High Court has directed an advocate in Vellore district to vacate a rented premises within two weeks failing which the landlord, a doctor, was given liberty to seek the assistance of the police to evict him. “It is made clear that the pendency of a rent control appeal is not a bar for the police to enter the premises using force,” the court said.
Justice S. Vaidyanathan passed the order on a petition filed by the lawyer V.K. Kumaresan to transfer rent control appeal from the Principal Subordinate Court in Vellore to a Subordinate Court in Ranipet. The advocate had insisted upon transferring the hearing after levelling certain allegations of bias against the presiding officer of the court in Vellore.
During the course of hearing of the transfer petition, the judge found that the lawyer had taken a 1,113 square feet property, belonging to doctor P. Jayaseelan, for a monthly rent of ₹1,800. However, claiming that he did not pay the rent properly since 2006 and was also using the property as a dumping yard, the landlord asked him to vacate in 2010.
The lawyer refused to vacate and so a rent control petition was filed. A trial court allowed the petition in favour of the doctor in 2015 and directed the lawyer to pay rental arears of ₹1.94 lakh. Subsequently, the landlord also filed an execution petition to initiate eviction proceedings but in the meantime, the lawyer went on appeal.
After multiple legal proceedings, the lawyer settled the rental arrears but did not vacate the property. Terming such conduct as a disgrace to the legal profession, Justice Vaidyanathan said: “The petitioner is a venom and if he is allowed to be mingled with other members of the Bar freely, the entire profession would be ruined like how a single drop of poison in a pot of milk turns the whole milk into poison.
“It is apposite to state that law profession is already under severe criticism and due to the activities of lawyers in this State, it further started diminishing its reputation among public. If a tenant, like the petitioner is allowed to occupy the premises, a situation may arise when no owner will rent out his building to an advocate.”
Empathising with the landlord for the agony undergone by him for last 14 years, the judge said: “A house is usually built or bought with the hard earned money of an individual or the family and it is considered to be the most expensive single purchase. The conduct of the petitioner in attempting to squat on such property is condemnable.
“Though this court had given him ample opportunity to correct himself, he has not shown any respect or indulgence to this court and is remorseless.” He also left it open to the landlord to lodge a complaint against the lawyer with the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
