The Delhi High Court has clarified that lawyers can legally operate their chambers from home basements without prior NDMC permission, provided they comply with building bye-laws and Master Development Plan limits, reaffirming professional use isn’t “commercial activity.”
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a crucial judgment for professionals operating from home, the Delhi High Court recently held that running a lawyer’s office from the basement of a residential property does not amount to commercial misuse under the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) Act, 1994.
ALSO READ: Arvind Kejriwal Bail Case: Delhi High Court Gives ED Last Chance to Challenge Bail
Background of the Case
The case arose when a complaint was filed against a lawyer who was operating his legal office from the lower ground floor of his residence. The complaint alleged that the office constituted commercial activity and was being run without prior permission from the NDMC Chairperson.
The NDMC initiated proceedings under Sections 252 and 369(1) of the NDMC Act, claiming that the use of the basement as an office was unauthorized. The petitioner challenged the complaint under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking its quashing.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner:
- Senior Advocate A.S. Chandhiok argued that using the basement for professional work by a lawyer did not constitute commercial activity.
- The petitioner’s office complied with the Delhi Building Bye-Laws, 1983, which allow basements to be used for office purposes if air-conditioned.
- He also contended that the order taking cognizance of the complaint lacked proper application of mind.
For NDMC:
- The NDMC argued that the property was sanctioned only for residential and storage purposes, and running an office represented a change of use.
ALSO READ: BREAKING| Sharjeel Imam Withdraws Interim Bail Plea to Contest Bihar Elections
Court’s Observations
The Bench, led by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, carefully examined whether operating a lawyer’s office qualifies as commercial use:
Not Commercial in Nature:
Referring to precedents such as M.P. Electricity Board v. Narayan (2005) and Sakharam Kherdekar v. City of Nagpur Corporation, the Court observed that a lawyer’s professional office lacks the “commercial character” essential to commercial activity.
Compliance with Master Development Plan (MDP-2001):
The Court highlighted that the MDP-2001 allows partial residential use for professional services up to 25% of the area or 50 sq. m., whichever is less. There was no evidence that the petitioner’s office exceeded this limit.
Building Bye-Laws Compliance:
Clause 14.12.1(vii) of the Delhi Building Bye-Laws, 1983 permits the basement to be used for professional office purposes if air-conditioned. The inspection report did not show any violations.
No Misuse or Abuse:
The Court found that continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of process, citing State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal.
The Delhi High Court quashed the complaint under Sections 252 and 369(1) of the NDMC Act and all consequential proceedings. The judgment confirmed that operating a lawyer’s office from the basement of a residential property, within the prescribed limits of the MDP and Building Bye-Laws, does not constitute misuse.
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.
Case Title:
B.K. Sood v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation
CRL.M.C. 4881/2005, CRL.M.A. 9803/2005
Read Judgment:
