Running Of Lawyer’s Office In Residential Basement Not Prohibited Under NDMC Act: Delhi High Court
Quashing the prosecution initiated for alleged misuse of premises, the High Court held that the professional office of an advocate in the basement of a residential building cannot be treated as a commercial establishment under the NDMC Act, 1994.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court held that operating a lawyer’s office from the basement of a residential property is not prohibited under the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) Act, 1994.
The Court was hearing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of a complaint filed under Sections 252 and 369(1) of the NDMC Act alleging misuse of premises by running an office without prior permission.
A Bench comprising Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while deciding the matter, remarked: “It has to be necessarily concluded that there was no misuse of the premises by the Petitioner, who had been running his office in terms of MDP, 2001 read with Delhi Building Bye- Laws, 1983. 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.”
Senior Advocate A.S. Chandhiok appeared for the petitioner, while Abhinav Bajaj, Additional Standing Counsel, represented the NDMC.
Background
The petitioner, an advocate, was occupying the lower ground floor of a residential building, which was alleged to have been misused for commercial purposes by running a legal office without permission from the Chairperson, NDMC.
Following an inspection, a complaint was filed under Section 252, read with Section 369(1) of the NDMC Act.
The petitioner contended that his use of the basement for professional work did not amount to commercial activity and that the order taking cognisance lacked application of mind. He further argued that under the Building Bye-laws, 1983, a basement could be used for office purposes if air-conditioned, and his premises complied with those conditions.
The NDMC, in its response, maintained that the property was sanctioned only for storage use and that running an office constituted a change of use without permission.
Court’s Observation
The Delhi High Court examined whether running a professional office by an advocate amounts to commercial use under the NDMC Act. Referring to M.P. Electricity Board v. Narayan (2005), it held that “the first conclusion that emerges is that the activity of running an Office by the Lawyer is not a commercial activity.”
Citing V. Sasidharan v. Peter and Karunakar, the Bench reiterated that a lawyer’s office is not an administrative service or a commercial establishment. The Court also relied on Sakharam Kherdekar v. City of Nagpur Corporation, which emphasised that the commercial character of business, which is an essential condition of a commercial activity, is absent in the lawyer’s profession.
Further, the Bench examined the Master Development Plan, 2001 (MDP-2001), which permits partial residential use for professional services up to 25% of the area or 50 sq. m., whichever is less. The Court observed that there was nothing to show that the petitioner’s office exceeded this permissible limit.
Referring to Clause 14.12.1(vii) of the Delhi Building Bye-Laws, 1983, the Court noted that a basement may be used for office purposes provided it is air-conditioned. The inspection report, it observed, failed to show any non-compliance with these provisions.
The Bench also referred to NDMC v. Tanvi Trading & Credit Pvt. Ltd. and R.K. Mittal v. State of U.P. (2012) to reaffirm that Master Plans have statutory force and must be adhered to strictly.
Concluding that there was no violation of the MDP-2001 or the Building Bye-Laws, the Court found that the complaint was misconceived. Citing State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Bench held that continuation of such proceedings would amount to abuse of process.
Conclusion
Allowing the petition, the Court quashed the complaint under Sections 252 and 369(1) of the NDMC Act and all consequential proceedings, stating that there was no misuse of the said premises by the petitioner.
Pending applications were accordingly disposed of.
Cause Title: B.K. Sood v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8906)
Appearances
Petitioner: Senior Advocate A.S. Chandhiok with Advocates Tarranjit Singh Sawhney and Jasmeet Kaur Ajimal.
Respondent: Abhinav Bajaj, ASC, with Advocates Saksham Ojha, Geetashi Chandna.