After over two decades of litigation, the Delhi High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a lawyer accused of running his office from the basement of a residential property.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna held that the use of a part of a residential premises for professional purposes is permissible under Clause 10 of the Master Development Plan (MDP) 2001. The provision allows residents to use up to 25% or 50 sq. meters—whichever is less—of their homes for professional, non-nuisance activities.

“There is no dispute that the basement was built as per the Master Plan. The issue pertains only to its usage. MDP 2001 expressly permits limited professional use of residential premises. The inspection report also does not show that the office exceeded the permissible limit,” the Court observed.

Advocate B.K. Sood had approached the High Court in 2005, challenging proceedings initiated under Sections 252 and 369(1) of the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994. Section 252 bars the use of unauthorized buildings for human habitation without permission, while Section 369(1) prescribes penalties up to six months’ imprisonment or a fine of ₹5,000.

It was alleged that Sood had misused the premises by conducting “commercial activity” without the NDMC Chairperson’s approval. Sood argued that a lawyer’s office is not a commercial establishment and therefore Section 252 does not apply. NDMC contended that the basement was sanctioned only for storage and not for office use.

Citing multiple precedents, the Court held that a lawyer’s office cannot be treated as a commercial venture. Referring further to MDP 2001 and Clause 14.12 of the Delhi Building Bye-Laws, 1983—which permits professional use of basements—the Court found no evidence of violation and termed the prosecution “unsustainable.”

Accordingly, the complaint and all consequential proceedings were quashed.

Case Title: B.K. Sood v. NDMC
Case No.: CRL.M.C. 4881/2005
Bench: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Appearances: Sr. Adv. A.S. Chandhiok with Mr. Tarranjit Singh Sawhney and Ms. Jasmeet Kaur Ajimal for the Petitioner; Mr. Abhinav Bajaj, ASC with Mr. Saksham Ojha and Ms. Geetashi Chandna for the Respondent.