MUKUL RANI VARSHNEI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants let out the property in question to M/s Tufted Carpets and Woollen Industries Limited (subsequently the name of the tenants was changed to M/s Trans Asia Carpets Ltd. ) in July 1978. The tenants applied for permission to Respondent 1, for using the said property for commercial purposes, known as non-conforming purpose. Permission was granted and extended from time to time by Respondent 1 till September 1981, though the tenants kept representing to the authorities for extension of time to stop the use of the premises for commercial purposes. In January 1983 the appellants received a show-cause notice dated 3/12/1982 from Respondent 1 asking them to show cause as to why they should not be prosecuted for violating Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the ground that the appellants had permitted the tenant-Company to use the said property in contravention of the provisions of the Master Planand the Zonal Development Plan of Delhi. The appellants replied to the show-cause notice staling that they had no information that the tenant was using the property in contravention of the plan without permission of Respondent 1 and asserted that they had not given any permission to the tenants to use the property for non-conforming purposes. The appellants were, thereafter, asked by Respondent 1 that the tenants should be stopped from misusing the property within 15 days from the date of the communication, failing which prosecution under Section 29 (2 of the Act would be launched against the appellants. This communication from Respondent 1 is dated 24/3/1983. The appellants once again through their letter dated 12/4/1993, controverted the allegations contained in the communication and reiterated what they had stated in the reply to the show-cause notice. They also, on the same date. through their counsel sent a notice to the tenant calling upon it to immediately stop the commercial use of the property. While the matter rested thus, prosecution was launched against the appellants for violation of Section 14 of the Act punishable under Section 29 (2 of the Act. The learned Trial Magistrate convicted the appellants vide judgment dated 1/4/1985 and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,500. 00 on each of the four appellants. The appellants preferred an appeal against their conviction and sentence before the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi but without any success and their appeals were dismissed on 17/7/1989. The revision petitions filed by the appellants before the High court were dismissed in lamina. By special leave granted by this court, the appellants are before us.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Section 14 of the Act provides:

(3.) From a bare reading of the section, it is obvious that a person can be said to violate the plan, if he uses or permits to be used the property otherwise than in conformity with the Master/zonal Plan. The allegations against the appellants is that they had permitted the tenant to use the property for commercial purposes in violation of the Master Plan.