The Madras High Court has elucidated that “A Lawyer involved in creation of forged rental agreement is liable to be prosecuted for misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975”
Brief Facts
The Petitioner landlord filed the present writ petition against a Respondent Tenant Advocate, who was enrolled with the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh. Petitioner asserted that he and respondent no. 5 had entered into an agreement, however, the 5th respondent not only committed default in payment of rent but also occupied other portions of the building by creating forged lease agreements. Even after filing several representations to the Bar Council and the police, no action was taken, leaving the petitioner landlord with no other remedy but to approach the High Court seeking directions for action against the respondent advocate and the consequential eviction from the property.
Issues
- Whether the acts of respondent advocate could be considered as professional misconduct under the Advocate’s Act, 1961.
- Whether the petitioner landlord has a right to obtain an order of eviction and / or other necessary actions against the respondent advocate.
Contentions of Petitioner
The petitioner asserted that the respondent advocate engaged in acts of forging rental agreements and in it’s furtherance forcibly occupied several areas of the subject matter property. Petitioner contended that, despite several complaints to Bar Council of India, Bar Council of Tamil Nadu, Bar Council of Puducherry and the police, no effective action was ever taken against the tenant advocate requiring the petitioner to seek the present intervention of the High Court.
Contentions of Respondent
Respondent advocate represented himself and supported the genuineness of the rent agreements by stating that that the lease agreement was prepared in the presence of two witnesses. He also asserted that the disputed payments were already transferred to the appellant in his bank account and that the issue involving property occupation was being addressed.
Observation of the Court
To find out the genuinity of the lease agreement, the High Court directed an investigation and forensic inquiry to be conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who later sent on those agreements to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Department. The Forensic Sciences Department submitted a report which disclosed that all the lease agreements produced by the respondent advocate were bogus and fabricated. In the report on investigation as submitted by ACP, the court noted that no evidence regarding payment of rent was submitted by respondent advocate. Ergo, the court found inconsistencies in respondent’s claim. The bench observed that the allegations of misconduct were not just limited to eviction and non-payment of rent but it also involved the abuse respondent’s position as a lawyer. The same necessitated an action under the Advocate’s Act and the rules of Bar Council.
Regarding the above, the Madras High Court observed that, “A Lawyer involved in creation of forged rental agreement is liable to be prosecuted for misconduct under the Advocates Act, 1961, and the Bar Council of India Rules, 1975.” … “The Bar Council has to maintain professional standards and in the event of any complaint of misconduct, actions are to be initiated. In the present case, the actions of the 5 th respondent did not stop with the tenant and landlord relationship but it exceeded by creating forged rental agreement by misusing his position as a lawyer”
The Madras HC bench also noted that, “In the present case, the actions of the 5 th respondent did not stop with the tenant and landlord relationship but it exceeded by creating forged rental agreement by misusing his position as a lawyer and further, a criminal case has also been registered against the 5 th respondent in Crime No.297/2024 under Section 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC. Therefore, actions at the end of the Bar Council is just and necessary.”
Decision
The High Court ordered the police to proceed against the respondent advocate with a criminal case. The Bar Council of India was also directed to take necessary action for advocate’s professional misconduct. In addition, the court also directed the police to evict the advocate from petitioner’s property within 48 hours.
Case Title: B.L. Madhavan v. The Secretary & Ors.
Citation: W.P.No.1006 of 2020
Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Coram: Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice V. Sivagnanam