The Delhi High Court recently reiterated that the running of a lawyer's chamber is not a commercial activity [B K Sood Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation]..The Court made the observation while quashing a complaint filed by the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) in 2004 against Advocate BK Sood, a resident of a lower-ground-floor property in Delhi.The NDMC claimed that Sood was running commercial activities at the property, thereby changing the nature of its designated use, without the NDMC Chairperson's permission. The NDMC argued that the basement was meant to be used only for storage, while advocate Sood was using it for human habitation and for running his office.Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, however, disagreed with the NDMC's view on whether running a lawyer's office could be termed as commercial activity."The activity of running an Office by the Lawyer is not a commercial activity," she held in the October 6 ruling. .The Court added that this question has already been answered in Supreme Court judgments, including the cases of MP Electricity Board and Others v. Narayan and Another (2005), and V Sasidharan v. M/s. Peter and Karunakar and others (1984). A similar view was also expressed in the Delhi High Court judgment in South Delhi Municipal Corporation v. BN Magon (2023)..Moreover, in this case, the Court found that the Master Development Plan, 2001, permitted the mixed use of residential spaces for non-nuisance, non-residential activities in up to 25 per cent of the space. "The premises in question are admittedly residential premises, wherein part of it, i.e. Basement was being used for professional activity, which is permitted under the MDP, 2001," it added. .Referring to the Delhi Building Bye-Laws, 1983, which was applicable to the present case, the Court further found that basements can be used as an office or for commercial purposes, provided it is air-conditioned and certain height, roof, ventilation, wall and floor specifications are met.However, in this case, the Court found that the NDMC's inspection did not cover these aspects to determine if there were any violations of these conditions. Therefore, the Court ruled that the NDMC's complaint could not stand, as there was nothing to show that Advocate Sood had violated the Master Development Plan, 2001, or the Delhi Building Bye-Laws, 1983 either. “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,” the Court stated. The Court proceeded to quash the complaint against the lawyer.“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 is permitted to continue and choke the judicial system,” the Court stated. .Senior Advocate AS Chandhiok with advocates Tarranjit Singh Sawhney and Jasmeet Kaur Ajimal appeared for Advocate Sood, who also appeared in person.Additional Standing Counsel Abhinav Bajaj with advocates Saksham Ojha and Geetashi Chandna appeared for NDMC. .[Read judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
