Dda vs Lodha And Co. And Anr.
2003 Latest Caselaw 1394 Del

JUDGMENT

R.S. Sodhi, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi in Case No. 187/1981, dated 22nd December, 1981, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents of offence under Section 14 read with Section 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act.

2. Despite notice on appeal having been served on the respondents, nobody appears. Brief facts of the case as noted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate are as follows:-

''Delhi Development Authority has prosecuted M/S Lodha and Company and one of its partner Shri P.K. Jain for having been found putting building bearing No. 12, Bhagat Singh Marg, New Delhi to a non-conforming use by running an office in the building as against the permissible use of residential according to the Master Plan for Delhi and Zonal Development Plan of Zone D-5 wherein the building in question falls. This violation of the Master Plan was detected by the field staff of the DDA on 24.9.80 and therefore, after obtaining the requisite permission from the concerned authorities Shri R.S. Gupta, Assistant Engineer filed the complaint against both the above named accused for the offence punishable u/s 29(2) read with Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act."

3. It is contended by counsel for the respondents that the premises though put to a non-conforming use prior to the coming of the operation of Master Plan in 1962, yet they would be covered by it by virtue of Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act and that the misuse can only continue upon terms and conditions that may be prescribed by regulation.

4. Since misuse has not been allowed specifically by any other authority its continued use as a non-conforming area would be a violation of Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act.

5. My attention is drawn to a judgment of this court in White Hill v. DDA and Ors., where the learned Judge has interpreted the proviso to Section 14 to mean that an exception to the general rule embodied in Section 14 would be subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed in regulations made in this behalf. But if the Authority fails to make regulations no disability is created for using and land or a building for a purpose for which it was previously being used.

6. In this view of the matter, bound by judicial precedent, Crl.A. 139/1982 is dismissed.