DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. M L SODHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3rd August, 1984 passed by Mr. A.S.Yadav, M.M., whereby the respondent M.L. Sodhi was acquitted of the offence under Section 14 read with Section 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act).

(2.) The allegation against the respondent was that he was running an office under the name and style of M/s. Laxmi Finance Exchange in the entire basement of plot No. 12-A, Sagar Apartments, Tilak Marg, New Delhi in contravention of the Master Plan/Zonal Development Plan. During trial the petitioner proved that the respondent was running an office under the name of M/s. Laxmi Finance Exchange in the basement of the building known as Sagar Apartments, Tilak Marg, New Delhi. It was further proved by the prosecution witness that the building in question fell in the Development Zone D-3 of the Master Plan for Delhi and should be used for residential purpose only. The learned M.M. found the facts in favour of the appellant but he held the view that running of the office in the basement of that building did not amount to non- conforming use. DW-1 proved before the Court the resolution No. 195 dated 28.11.1978 which did not provide any specific use for the basement in which it was observed that no specific use for the basement has been provided for in the Master Plan and it recommended that the basement should be used for parking, servicing and storage. The learned M.M. observed that the running of an office was covered by the words 'servicing'. He, therefore, acquitted the respondent.

(3.) A number of judgments of this Court has been placed on the record to show that the basement of that building could not be used for running an office. The first judgment is of Crl. A. No. 169/1983 titled DDA v. M/s. Federation of Engineering Industry of India & Ors. which deals with the basement No. 30 of Sagar Apartments where the accused was running an office. The M.M. had convicted the accused but the learned Addl. Sessions Judge overruled the conviction and acquitted the accused on the finding that no specific use of the basement in question was prescribed in the Master Plan and, therefore, could be used for office without contravention of the Master Plan. This Court vide the judgment dated 30.10.2003 followed a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in DDA v. Rajinder Mittal, reported as 42 (1990) DLT 592 in which it was held that if the building falls in the residential area, the basement could be no exception. It was observed by the Division Bench that by administrative orders it was made clear that the basement could only be used for residential purposes or for purposes incidental thereto. The Court, therefore, convicted the accused and confirmed the sentence imposed by the M.M.