Delhi HC rules lawyers' offices not commercial establishments; quashes NDMC case against advocate

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday held that the professional office of a lawyer cannot be classified as a "commercial activity" under the New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) Act. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, while quashing a 22-year-old criminal complaint against an advocate, observed that running a lawyer's office from a residential basement does not amount to misuse of premises or change of land use.

The court noted that "the activity of running an office by a lawyer is not a commercial activity," emphasising that the legal profession is "a vocation dependent upon individual qualification and intellectual skill" and distinct from trade or business involving profit and loss. The case stemmed from an NDMC complaint filed in 2004 alleging that the lawyer had misused his basement at Golf Apartments, Sujan Singh Park, by operating his law office without prior permission from the civic body. The NDMC claimed this violated Sections 252 and 369(1) of the NDMC Act, 1994, which prohibit changing the use of premises without approval.

Rejecting the NDMC's argument, the court referred to Supreme Court judgments to underline that the legal profession cannot be equated with commercial ventures. It also cited precedents from the Bombay High Court and the Delhi High Court, reinforcing the professional character of legal work. Justice Krishna further observed that under the Delhi Master Development Plan (MDP) 2001 and Building Bye-Laws, 1983, the use of up to 25% of a residential property for professional purposes, such as a lawyer's office, is permissible. Clause 14.12.1(vii) of the bye-laws also allows basement use for office purposes, provided it is air-conditioned, which the petitioner's premises were.

Finding that "the prosecution has not been able to show any violation" of the bye-laws, the court said allowing the criminal case to continue after more than two decades would amount to "an abuse of the process of law." Accordingly, the court quashed the Complaint and all consequential proceedings, bringing relief to the petitioner. (ANI)