Delhi High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Lawyer For Running Office From Basement After 22 Yrs

In doing so, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna cited Clause 10 of the Master Development Plan 2001, which permits non-residential use of residential premises.

It stipulates that a resident can be permitted to use part of his residence to the extent of 25% or 50 sq. meters, whichever is less, for a non-residential or a non-nuisance activity, which is for the purpose of rendering services based on his professional skills.

“There is no dispute that the Basement was constructed according to the Master plan. The question is in regard to its user. As already observed, MDP, 2001 recognizes the use of residential premises for office purpose to the extent of 25% of the area. There is nothing in the Inspection Report to indicate that the office was being run in an area which was more than the permissible limit,” the bench observed in the facts of the case.

Advocate BK Sood had approached the Court back in 2005, over a complaint lodged against him under Sections 252 and 369(1) of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act 1994.

Section 252 stipulates that no part of any building, not originally erected or authorised to be used for human habitation, can be used for that purpose, without the permission of the Chairperson.

Section 369(1) entails imprisonment up to six months or fine of Rs.5,000/- for violations.

It was alleged that Sood misused the premises by “carrying out commercial activity” without permission of the NDMC Chairperson. Cognizance of the said complaint was taken by the Metropolitan Magistrate, prompting him to approach the High Court.

Sood argued that running a professional office does not qualify as commercial activity amounting to human habitation, and thus Section 252 is not attracted.

NDMC on the other hand argued that the Basement was never intended to be used for residence but only for storage. The question is not whether the operating of the office by a lawyer is a commercial activity, but it is the change of the user of the basement from storage/godown to run the office, it was argued.

The High Court firstly cited a plethora of precedents to conclude that the activity of running an Office by the Lawyer is not a commercial activity.

It then referred to MDP 2001 and observed that there was no misuse of the premises by the Petitioner. It added,

“The prosecution has not been able to even prima facie show that there was any violation of Clause 14.12 of the Delhi Building by Laws, 1983, as amended from time to time, which provides for the usage for the basement as the office by a professional.”

As such, the Court quashed the complaint.

Appearance: Mr. A. S. Chandhiok, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Tarranjit Singh Sawhney and Ms. Jasmeet Kaur Ajimal, Advocates with Petitioner in person; Mr. Abhinav Bajaj, ASC with Mr. Saksham Ojha and Ms. Geetashi Chandna, Advocates for Respondent

Case title: BK Sood v. NDMC

Case no.: CRL.M.C. 4881/2005

Click here to read order