LAWS(DLH)-1986-12-6

V SHANKAR AIYER AND COMPANY Vs. STATE

Decided On December 15, 1986
SHANKAR AIYER AND COMPANY Appellant
V/S
STATE OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, most of the facts are not in dispute. Appellant no, I, V. Shankar Aivar & Co. is a firm of Chartered Accountants. Appellant no. 2, Shri V. Rethinam is one of the partners. The Company is running its office at 8, S. Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi. The building in question falls in Zone D-5, and according to the Master Plan for Delhi and Zonal Development Plan of the area, the premises can be used for residential purposes only. On 23-9-80, Public Witness-1, Shri B.S. Saini, Junior Engineer, inspected the premises and found the same being used for office purpose against the prescribed user of residential. On the report of the Junior Engineer, the complaint Ex. Public Witness 1/F was filed against both the accused after obtaining requisite sanction from the Competent Authority. After the cognizance was taken, both the accused put in appearance and separate notices under Section 251 Cr. P.C. were given to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(2.) The respondents took up the stand that the premises in question were taken on rent by the company for running an office. In fact, this building is situated in the commercial area and is being used by various offices and banks. There is no provision for kitchen, latrine or bath which utilities are very essential for the use of any building for the purpose of residence. In defence, they also produced witnesses to show that the house-tax of this premises is also being charged at commercial rates by the N.D.M.C.

(3.) The learned trial court on consideration of the material on record came to the conclusion that as the accused/appellants are using the premises for commercial purposes, which is against the prescribed user of the Master Plan for Delhi, thus their user is in contravention of Section 14 read with Section 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act. However, a lenient view was taken and a fine of Rs. 500.00 on each of the accused was imposed and in default, accused No. 2 was ordered to undergo S.I. for two months.