Lawyer's Chambers in residential space not "commercial" space, unlike law firms: Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court recently highlighted that when a litigating lawyer uses his residential space to establish his chambers, the space cannot be categorised as a commercial use. This unlike law firms that use commercial spaces to carry out their work, the Court held..The Court was called to make the distinction while deciding whether a residential space used by a lawyer for his legal chambers would come under a domestic or commercial category for the purpose of levying electricity tariffs..The petitioner had filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court when his request to receive a new electric connection for his chalmber under the "domestic (urban)" category was not fulfilled by CESC Limited. .The petitioner was a practicing lawyer who had set up his chamber on the ground floor of a multi-storied building where he resides. Instead of a domestic (urban), he received a quotation from CESC Limited for payment of service charges and security deposit on the basis of a "commercial (urban)" connection. After the CESC did not reply to a representation he made registering his protest over the same, the petitioner moved the High Court in a writ plea..Advocate Subir Sanyal, while representing the petitioner submitted that the profession of a lawyer cannot be equated as a commercial activity. .The respondents, CESC limited were represented by Advocate Rajiv Lall, who submitted that the issue in question in writ petition was not related to classification of the premises but the use of electricity in a premises and the imposition of electricity tariff for the said use..To decide the dispute, the Court first noted that the if the ‘legal profession’ was found to be a commercial activity, the matter would come to a rest. If this is not the case, the remaining question would be if the activity being carried out by the petitioner in a residential space would fall under the category of commercial (urban) as far as the levy of tariff was concerned. .Justice Shekhar B Saraf eventually found that legal profession could not be termed a commercial activity. As recorded in the judgment, ."... it is crystal clear that the profession of a lawyer cannot be termed as a commercial activity."Calcutta High Court.Inter alia, the Court also found support for this position in the Supreme Court case of V Sasidharan, v. M/s. Peter and Karunakar and Chairman, M.P. Electricity Board and Others v Shiv Narayan and Anr..The High Court proceeded to explain,."... 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....... 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)’.".Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Shiv Narayam, Justice Saraf opined that there is a third category namely “non-domestic”, apart from domestic and commercial. The High Court found that a lawyer’s chamber would fall under such category. The Court elaborated, ."... falling under the category of “non-domestic” would not automatically make the use “commercial”. The words “non domestic” and “commercial” are not fungible, and therefore, cannot be interchanged.".Further the Court noted that the law is not clear on the tariffs leviable on such "non-domestic" entities. All the same, the Bench observed that the lack of clarity in the law should not be used to the detriment of the consumer. 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, the Court held. ."... a lack of clarity in the tariff cannot be used to the detriment of the user and the benefit of doubt would in such cases have to be given to the consumer."Calcutta High Court.In view of these observations, the Court allowed the plea, finding that the space being used by the petitioner was to be considered as an extension of his residence for the operation of his legal chamber. The Court observed, ."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)”"Calcutta High Court.The Court added that this situation was clearly distinguishable from law firms and proprietorship firms, that are have offices in commercial spaces dealing with litigation and non-litigation work. .The writ petition was, thus, allowed. The Court directed CESC Limited to provide a new electric connection to the petitioner under the category ‘Domestic (Urban)’ within a period of two weeks from date of the Judgement..[Read the Judgement here]