“1) 30 percent of residential premises can be used for consultations by physicians, attorneys, and CA. That would not be considered commercial use of the land.
2) If more than 30% of the flat is utilised for business purposes, they will be required to pay commercial water rates and commercial property tax.
3) The Allahabad High Court has convened a hearing. All of the petitioners are licenced and registered physicians. They have the right to operate their own private medical clinics and provide expert advise to patients. A doctor’s clinic in a section of a residential house, which may be tiny or large but does not fill the entire area with a waiting hall, a dispensary, or even a small diagnostic facility, will not transform a premise’s user from residential to commercial. Doctors, attorneys, consultants, architects, chartered accountants, property consultants, and government guides may all engage in non-nuisance professional activities. The problem arises when the doctor or any other consultants use a significant portion of the structure.for the activity, which includes incidental activities such as x-ray, ultrasound, pathology, the operating room, and the wards where patients are admitted These activities, together with the consulting, exceed the user’s professional use restriction.
4) In this matter, we find that all of the petitioners are using the residential houses to run their clinics and have transformed the use of the majority of the building to provide activities such as x-ray, ultrasonography, pathology, operation theatre, private wards, and general wards. Some of these wards are so tiny that just one bed may be accommodated in each room. Shri Arvind Srivastava’s contention that such users are unavoidable in medical practise cannot be accepted. In such a circumstance, no reasonable person can claim that the building’s use has not been converted from residential to commercial.
Reference: Nand Kishore vs Yashpal Singh
such admission of the respondent himself that the appellant can resume the demised premises at any time because of carrying on the commercial activity and that the demised premises is in a residential area and also in a residential building. That apart, Section 11 of the Act clearly prohibits a landlord or a tenant to convert the purpose of tenancy without the permission of the Rent Controller.
Annexed is a Judgment from ALD HC and the essence of decision is that professionals can practice at home in an area around 30% of their floor area like doctors and lawyers and does not come under commercial activity. In the Annexed Judgment the doctors have crossed the limit of 30% of floor area and gone to the extent of admitting patients which of course are not permissible. However there are various judgments of Hon’ble SC and from various HCs’ that says there is no bar for doctors, lawyers and chattered accountants to practice at their residential flat / apartments as long as they do not use the substantial portion of the flat for profession.
Such being the position, we must conclude that the respondent was inducted by the appellant at the initial stage in the demised premises for residential purposes but later on converted the tenancy for commercial use. In the eviction application as well as in evidence, it was the case of the appellant that in the month of April, 1994, the respondent was inducted for residential use and the commercial activities were started by him in the month of December, 1994 onwards. In view of our discussions made hereinabove, we must hold that the respondent was inducted in the demised premises for residential use and not for commercial purposes but the respondent converted the tenancy later on from residential to commercial use. – – AHG65 – 202100581 – 32 – 21 – 202100333-20210021-602