Delhi High Court: The present petition was filed by a practicing advocate (‘petitioner’) under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) for quashing of complaint under Sections 252 and 369(1) of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 (‘NDMC Act’) alleging misuse of premises by running his office without permission from the Chairperson, NDMC.
A Single Judge Bench of Neena Bansal Krishna, J., held that classifying the activities of the petitioner as commercial activity was not only arbitrary but irrational and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and held that there was no misuse of the premises by the petitioner, who had been running his office in terms of the Master Development Plan, 2001, (‘Master Plan’) read with Delhi Building Bye Laws, 1983.
Background
In the present case, the petitioner was alleged to have been misusing premises as he was carrying out commercial activity by running a lawyer’s office without permission from the Chairperson, NDMC. The petitioner submitted that the Metropolitan Magistrate had taken cognizance against the settled principles of law, and notice was issued erroneously to the petitioner.
The petitioner also contended that running a professional office did not qualify as commercial activity amounting to human habitation, in violation of Section 252 of the NDMC Act. On the other hand, the respondent argued that the basement was never intended to be used for residence but only for storage, while the petitioner was using it for human habitation by running his office there.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that the issue involved in the case at hand was “whether the legal services rendered by the office of a lawyer would amount to ‘commercial activity’ or not?”.
The Court specified that while a commercial activity involved investment of capital, profit and loss and co-operation of labor; on the other hand, the professional service of rendering advice in law was dependent upon one’s own academic qualification and individual skill. Thus, the Court stated that the said peculiar and distinctive features of the legal profession did not permit its inclusion in commercial or semi-commercial activity, establishment, or institution. Further, the Court classifying the activities of the petitioner as commercial activity was not only arbitrary but irrational and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Considering the Inspection Report, the Court specified that the petitioner was running his ‘professional office’ to provide ‘professional services’ in law, from the basement of premises. Further considering Section 252 of the NDMC Act, the Court noted that there were certain restrictions on use of buildings and stated that in the present case, it was a residential building, the basement of which was being used as the office of the lawyer by the petitioner, and there was no other use of this property but human habitation.
After considering the Master Plan, the Court opined that the basement being used for professional activity was permitted under it. The Court emphasized that there was no dispute that the basement was constructed according to the Master plan and it could be used for commercial or office purposes. The Court held that in the present case, the same was being used as office of the lawyer only.
Thus, the Court opined that there was no misuse of the premises by the petitioner, who had been running his office in terms of Master Plan read with Delhi Building Bye Laws, 1983. Further, the Court stated that considering the nature of unsubstantiated allegations and that the case being pending for the last more than 22 years, it would be abuse of the process of the law and not serve any interest of justice, if such complaint was permitted to continue and choke the judicial system. Therefore, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the said complaint along with all consequential proceedings emanating therefrom.
[B. K. Sood v. North Delhi Municipal Corp., CRL.M.C. No. 4881 of 2005, decided on 8-10-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: A. S. Chandhiok, Sr. Advocate with Tarranjit Singh Sawhney and Jasmeet Kaur Ajimal, Advocates
For the Respondent: Abhinav Bajaj, ASC with Saksham Ojha and Geetashi Chandna, Advocates
Buy Constitution of India HERE
