{"id":225606,"date":"2020-02-13T18:11:21","date_gmt":"2020-02-13T12:41:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=225606"},"modified":"2020-02-18T12:03:34","modified_gmt":"2020-02-18T06:33:34","slug":"cal-hc-lawyer-using-domestic-space-as-his-chamber-will-not-be-charged-with-tariff-in-commercial-category","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/02\/13\/cal-hc-lawyer-using-domestic-space-as-his-chamber-will-not-be-charged-with-tariff-in-commercial-category\/","title":{"rendered":"Cal HC | Lawyer using domestic space as his chamber will not be charged with tariff in “commercial category”"},"content":{"rendered":"

Calcutta High Court: <\/strong>Shekhar B. Saraf, J., while allowing the present petition held that,<\/p>\n

\u201cLawyer using a domestic space as his chamber for his livelihood cannot be placed in the commercial category.\u201d<\/p>\n

The present writ petition was filed to resolve the issue as to whether a lawyer using a domestic space as his chambers is liable to be charged with a tariff on a commercial basis.<\/p>\n

Petitioner who is a practicing lawyer was having a chamber on the ground floor of the multi-storied building where he resided on the third floor. He had made an application for a new electric connection on the ground floor under the category domestic (urban).<\/p>\n

CESC Limited had sent the petitioner a quotation for payment of service charges and security deposit on the basis of commercial connection. Later on, receiving the same, the petitioner raised an objection to the said quotation and sought a fresh quotation on the basis of domestic connection.<\/p>\n

Aggrieved with the above, the petitioner filed the present petition.<\/p>\n

Counsel for the petitioner, Subir Sanyal, submitted that the profession of a lawyer cannot be equated as a commercial activity. Neither the Electricity Act nor any Rules or Regulations framed thereunder define the term \u201ccommercial\u201d.<\/p>\n

In reference to the above, counsel cited the case — V. Sasidharan v. Peter and Karunakar<\/em>, (1984) 4 SCC 230<\/a>, wherein the following was held:<\/p>\n

\u201c…under the Shops and Establishment Act, the establishment of a legal practitioner\/ firm of lawyers was held not to be a commercial establishment.\u201d<\/p>\n

Advocate Rajiv Lall, appearing on behalf of CESC Limited, relied on the Supreme Court decision in,<\/p>\n

M.P. Electricity Board v. Shiv Narayan, <\/em>(2005) 7 SCC 283<\/a>, to indicate that the activity of a lawyer running an office falls under the category of non-domestic use.<\/p>\n

Analysis<\/strong><\/p>\n

High Court on perusal of the Supreme Court decision in M.P. Electricity Board v. Shiv Narayan<\/em>, (2005) 7 SCC 283<\/a>, stated that it is evident that the tariff entries in the case before the Supreme Court were of two categories, that is, (a) \u201cdomestic purposes\u201d and (b) \u201ccommercial and non-domestic purposes\u201d. The Supreme Court after examining held that as the use was not domestic it would fall in the category of \u201ccommercial and non-domestic\u201d and further held that running an office is clearly a \u201cnon-domestic\u201d use.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere 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 \u2018Commercial (Urban)\u2019.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Further, the Court noted that the categorization in the tariff of CESC Ltd. only contains two categories of relevance to the present case:<\/p>\n