Tenancy row: HC comes down heavily on advocate

Justice S Vaidyanathan made this observation while passing orders on a transfer petition filed by an advocate V K Kumaraesan, who had earlier rented a house in Vellore from a doctor. 

The doctor claimed that the advocate had failed to pay rent between 2006 and 2010 and further the advocate was treating the rented premises like dump yard.

However, while eviction proceedings were instituted in 2010, the advocate in 2015 was directed to pay rental arrears of about Rs 14 lakhs. Another proceeding initiated by the landlord led a court to direct the advocate to pay around Rs 2.4 lakh worth arrears in 2017.

But as a last resort to drag on the proceedings, the advocate filed a transfer plea at the Madras High Court alleging that the lower court judge at Vellore was biased.

But Justice Vaidyanathan on hearing the plea held said “It is clear that the tenant adopting the dilly-dallying practice to prolong the proceeding in RCA as well as this case.”

He further noted “It is apposite to state that law profession is already under severe criticism and due to the activities of the lawyers in this State, it further started diminishing its reputation among public.”

Based on this, Justice Vaidyanathan directed the advocate to vacate the premises within two weeks after granting the landlord liberty to file a complaint against the lawyer before the State Bar Council for his conduct.

However, Justice Vaidyanathan while noting that these directions may appear to be beyond the scope of the transfer petition, said “Unless such person with unprofessional conduct is dealt with an iron hand, the noble profession cannot be safeguarded and if this kind of advocate is not taught a lesson, it will definitely  set a bad precedent to the public and create a bad image about lawyers in the society, as the person like the petitioner ought to be nipped at the bud itself and it is for the Bar Council to decide on the same.”

The court also recorded the aspect that the advocate had changed his counsel at least three times including once before the High Court. His last change of counsel was prompted by his refusal to listen to the counsel’s advice to abide by the Court’s direction to vacate the premises.