WHITE HILL Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts given rise to this revision petition succinctly are that the petitioner is a partnership firm carrying on the business of drycleaning on the ground floor of premises No. L-28, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. At the relevant time Gulab Rai and his two sons Visban Lal and Darshan Lal were partners in the petitioner firm. Shri Virender Bhatia, Junior Engineer of the respondent, Delhi Development Authority inspected the premises in question on 5th August 1978 and found that the entire ground floor thereof was being used for commercial purpose viz. drycleaning business of the petitioner firm. Since the user was in contravention of the Zonal Development Plan, he made a report Ex. Public Witness 1/A to this effect to the concerned officer. As a sequel thereto, a show-cause notice dated 10th August, 1978 was issued to the petitioner, Gulab Rai and his two sons Vishan Lal and Darshan . Lal as to why they should not be prosecuted for contravention of the provisions contained in Section 14 read with Section 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Gulab Rai sent a reply dated 6th September, 1978 to the said notice, inter alia, stating that he had taken the premises in question on rent from Shri Asa Nand Sehgal, who was its owner, with effect from 1st December, 1968 and since then he had been , using the premises for commercial purpose. To begin with he was running a General and Provisions Store and thereafter he started the business of drycleaning in 1972 which business he had been carrying on since then under the name and style of the petitioner firm. He further stated that both his sons Vishan Lal and Darshan Lal were partners in the said business. He pointed out that an eviction petition had been filed against him by the landlord, inter alia, on the ground of misuser of the demised premises i.e contrary to the purpose for which the same were let, but he successfully contested the same on the ground that the letting purpose itself was commercial. The eviction petition was accordingly dismissed.

(2.) Not satisfied with the said explanation, the respondent instituted & complaint against the petitioner, Gulab Rai, Vishan Lal and Darshan Lal on 2nd of February,. 1979 for their prosecution for infringement of the pro- visions of Section 14 read with Section 29(2) of the Act. It was, inter alia, contended, "It has been reported by the field staff of the Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi vide report dated 5-8-78 that the above mentioned accused persons have put to use building bearing No. L-28, Kirti Nagar, to a non-conforming use by running dry-cleaning shop. The said building fails in Zone No. G 2 and can be used only for residential purposes according to the Master Plan for Delhi/Zonal Development Plan of this Zone G2, as referred to under Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act and have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 29(2) of the said Act,"

(3.) The petitioners while admitting the commercial user of the premises for their dry-cleaning business took up the defence that they had been carrying on their business in the premises ever since the inception of the tenancy from 1st December 1968 and as such they being covered by the protection afforded by the proviso to Section 14 of the Act they were not guilty of any infringement of the provisions of Section 14. They also refuted the claim of the respondent that the prescribed user of the premises in question under the Master Plan/Zonal Development Plan was residential only. In other words, their stand was that the building in question did not fall in the residential zone, as alleged.