It is a shame if an advocate-tenant refuses to vacate rented premises on time: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently censured an advocate for failing to vacate rented premises on time and for having attempted to protract the matter under the pretext of filing review applications in a legal dispute initiated in the case. .The facts of the case prompted Justice S Vaidyanathan to remark in his order passed earlier this month that it was shameful on the part of the advocate to vacate the premises despite the landlord requiring it.."It is very saddening to note that it is a shame on the part of an Advocate to refuse to vacate the premises, when a landlord requires it and the Advocates are referred to as gentleman in the preamble to Chapter-II of the Bar Council of India Rules under Section 49(1)(c) of the Act read with the proviso thereto. In the present case on hand, the petitioner / Tenant has proved himself to be a wicked, dishonest and unprincipled person," the order said..The Court opined that an advocate who happens to be a tenant should act as a gentleman would and vacate the premises within 30 days after the landlord makes a request. .Justice Vaidyanathan added, "If that happens, a Lawyer will get a house on rent even without a written agreement.".The Court proceeded to express concern that some advocates are viewed as rowdies and third-rate criminals by the public owing to conduct like that of the tenant-lawyer in this case. ."It is painful to say that many of the Advocates are involved in the land grabbing and if the antecedent of the petitioner / tenant is verified, he may also be one of the land grabbers. The tenant has scant regard for the orders of the Court and he has portrayed sadistic attitude," the Judge commented. .In this case, the Court recounted that it had directed an Advocate, VK Kumaresan, to vacate the premises as early as February 19, 2020, within a two week period. However, the Court was informed that he had vacated the premises much later, around a year thereafter. ."It is very unfortunate that the petitioner took one long year to comply with the said order. However, this Court is of the view that the approach adopted by the petitioner / Advocate / Tenant in a clandestine manner to defeat the orders of this Court, is clear abuse of process of the Court," the Court said. .It was noted that the matter was dragged on under the pretext of filing review applications, that the tenant-lawyer was not present when the matter was taken up earlier in February 2020 and that an attempt was even made at forum shopping through a letter addressed to the Chief Justice two days before the February 19 order was pronounced by Justice Vaidyanathan. ."By the time the letter could reach my hand, I had already pronounced the order", the Judge remarked. .The Court proceeded to opine lawyers should refrain from defending dishonest tenants, such as the advocate in the present case, in order to safeguard the profession's reputation.."Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to MHAA, MBA and Women Lawyers' Association to inform the members of the respective Associations that they should not defend a dishonest Tenant, who happens to be a deceitful Advocate, like the petitioner herein, who is not a gentleman, in order to safeguard the reputation of this profession," read the order..Before parting with the matter, the Court also asked the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to take action against the petitioner for misconduct on complaint. .[Read Order]