Delhi Development Authority vs Jang Bahadur Bhalla
2014 Latest Caselaw 1408 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                              Date of Decision: 18.03.2014

+                               CRL. A.56 of 2010

DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY                              ..... Appellant
             Through: Mr. Arun Birbal, Adv.

                                   versus

JANG BAHADUR BHALLA                                      ..... Respondent
              Through: Mr. Vinod Asri, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

                                  JUDGEMENT

V.K. JAIN, J. (Oral)

On 29.10.2003, on inspecting SFS flat No.194, Pocket-I, Sector 9 of

Dwarka, it was found, by Shri R.K. Verma, Junior Engineer (Enforcement)

of DDA, that a furniture workshop under the name and style of Panchanan

Furniture was functioning in the whole of the flat and as many as ten (10)

persons were working there in an area measuring 90 sq.mtrs. The

respondent Jang Bahadur Bhalla was found present at the time of inspection

and he admitted to be the person who had permitted the use of the aforesaid

premises for the furniture workshop though he refused to sign the inspection

report.

2. Based upon the aforesaid inspection, a complaint under Section 14

read with Section 29(2) of Delhi Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter

referred to as the 'DD Act') was filed against the respondent Jang Bahadur

Bhalla.

3. On notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. being given to the respondent, he

pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereupon as many as five (5)

witnesses were examined by the complainant. No witness was examined in

defence.

4. Shri R.K. Verma, Junior Engineer came in the witness box as CW1

and inter alia stated that when inspected the aforesaid flat on 29.10.2003, he

found a furniture shop functioning there under the name and style of M/s.

Panchanan Furniture and ten (10) persons were working at the time of

inspection. He claimed that the respondent Jang Bahadur Bhalla disclosed

himself to be the owner of the flat. The witness further stated that the

above-referred premises falls in Zone K, Dwarka and in terms of Master

Plan can be used only for residential purposes. Ex.CW1/A1, A2 are the

photographs which the witness took at the time of inspection. Yet another

photograph is Ex.CW1/A5. According to the witness he had located the

aforesaid premises at point 'X' indicated by mark 'A' in the Zonal Map and

the Land Use Plan Ex.CW1/B and CW1/C.

CW2 Ms. Ritu Sharma is an official of DDA who inter alia stated that

the above-referred flat was allotted to the respondent for residential

purposes. A copy of conveyance deed is Ex.CW2/A.

5. CW3 Shri S.C. Kaura was the General Secretary of the Residential

Welfar Association of SFS Flat, Pocket-I, Sector 9, Dwarka at the relevant

time. He inter alia stated that he had sent the letter Ex.CW1/E1 to the Vice

Chairman, DDA in respect of Flat No.194, Pocket I, Sector 9, Dwarka. He

further stated that on 29.10.2003, there was a workshop of furniture

functioning at the aforesaid flat under the name & style of M/s. Panchanan

Furniture which was creating nuisance and noise. He further stated that now

the aforesaid flat has been let out to Disha Nursery School.

CW4 Shri Dinesh Vij was the General Secretary of Residential

Welfare Association, Pocket I, Sector 9, Dwarka, who made the complaint

Ex.CW1/E to DDA in respect of furniture workshop in Flat No.194. He

inter alia stated that in the year 2003, the work of wood was going on in the

aforesaid flat.

6. CW5 Shri Sunil Kumar Khanna is the officer who has filed the

complaint under Section 14 read with Section 29(2) of DD Act against the

respondent.

7. In his statement under Section 281 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 313

thereof, the respondent stated that he was only furnishing the aforesaid flat

and was not undertaking any commercial activity there.

8. Vide impugned order dated 8.3.2007, the respondent was acquitted.

Being aggrieved, the complainant is before this Court by way of this appeal.

9. I see no reason to disbelieve CW1 Shri R.K. Verma who being an

official of DDA inspected the flat in question in discharge of his official

duties as a public servant. There was no enmity or ill-will between him and

the respondent. Therefore, he had no reason to prepare a false inspection

report and depose falsely against the respondent. A perusal of the report of

Mr. Verma Ex.CW1/A would show that at the time he inspected the

premises, as many as ten (10) persons were found working in the flat in

question and a furniture workshop was being run there. The deposition of

Mr. Verma finds corroboration not only from the photographs which he took

but also from the deposition of PW3 Shri S.C. Kaura and PW4 Shri Dinesh

Vij. Ex.CW1/E1 is a complaint made by Residents Welfare Association of

DDA SFS Flats, Pocket I, Sector 9, Dwarka to DDA alleging commercial

activity in as many as eleven (11) flats including the flat in question, being

flat No.194. It was expressly stated in the said complaint that in Flat

No.194, M/s. Panchanan Furniture shop was being run and furniture was

being manufactured. The DDA was requested to take appropriate legal

action against the flat owners who were misusing the flats in the locality.

The respondent does not allege any kind of animosity between him and Shri

S.C. Kaura who made the aforesaid complaint to DDA. Mr. Kaura came in

the witness box as CW3 and expressly stated that on 29.10.2003, a furniture

workshop under the name and style of M/s. Panchanan Furniture was

functioning in the aforesaid flat and creating nuisance and noise. The

deposition of Shri S.C. Kaura also finds corroboration from the deposition of

PW4 Shri Dinesh Vij who made the complaint Ex.CW1/E to DDA on

6.11.2003 alleging that a furniture workshop was functioning in flat No.194.

Mr. Dinesh Vij came in the witness as CW4 and not only did he prove the

complaint made by him he also stated that in the year 2003, work of wood

was going on in the aforesaid flat on account of which a complaint was

made by him. He expressly denied the suggestion that no commercial

activity was being carried out in the aforesaid flat though he admitted that

after one (1) month the repair or renovation activity in the flat was stopped.

10. Ex.CW1/A4 and A5 are the photographs showing signboard of M/s.

Panchanan Furniture on the front of flat in question. This is not the case of

the respondent that the flat which appears in the aforesaid photographs is not

flat No.194 in Pocket I, Sector 9, Dwarka. Had the respondent not been

carrying commercial activity in the aforesaid flat there could be no occasion

for him to place the aforesaid signboard on its front. It is true that the

photographs taken by CW1 do not show any worker engaged in the

manufacturing of furniture in the aforesaid flat but that to my mind would

not be necessary considering the deposition of CW1 which finds full

corroboration not only from the deposition of CW3 S.C. Kaura and CW4

Dinesh Vij as well as the complaints made by them to DDA at the relevant

time but also from the photographs showing the signboard of Panchanan

Furniture on the front of the shop in question.

11. Though no documentary evidence such as Shops & Establishment

Registration Certificate and Sales Tax Registration Certificate has been

collected by the complainant, that by itself would now show that on the date

of inspection, the aforesaid flat was not being used as a workshop of

furniture. It is quite possible for a person to use a residential flat for running

a furniture workshop without getting himself registered with VAT

Department and without obtaining registration under the Shops and

Establishments Act. In fact, a person carrying commercial activity, in a

residential flat may not get a VAT or Shop & Establishment Act registration,

and, therefore, he is not likely to apply for such a registration. Moreover, as

stated by CW4 in his cross-examination, the aforesaid activity was stopped

after about one (1) month. This would indicate that though the respondent

may later have stopped the misuse, he was certainly using the flat in

question for a commercial purpose on the date of the inspection. It would be

pertinent to note here that this is not the case of the respondent that he was

not the allottee of the aforesaid flat or was not in its possession on the date it

purports to have been inspected. Admittedly, not only was he allotted the

aforesaid flat, it was in his possession on the date of inspection, i.e.

29.10.2003.

12. The complainant placed on record a local News Bulletin titled

Dwarka Sandesh - March, 2003 issue, in which an advertisement of

Panchanan Furniture and Interiors appears. Though the aforesaid document

was not exhibited, it can hardly be disputed that the aforesaid advertisement

could have been given by none other than the respondent since it bears the

address flat No.194, Pocket I, Sector 9, Dwarka besides two landline

numbers and one mobile number. This is not the case of the respondent that

the aforesaid telephone numbers do not belong to him. In any case, the

charge against the respondent stands duly proved even if the said

advertisement is not considered.

13. Since in terms of the Master Plan and Land Use Plan, the aforesaid

flat would have been used only for residential purpose, the respondent

contravened the provisions of DD Act by using the same for a furniture

workshop on 29.10.2003.

14. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impunged order dated

8.3.2007 is set aside and the respondent is convicted under Section 14 read

with Section 29(2) of Delhi Development Act. The respondent is sentenced

to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- or to undergo SI for one (1) month in default. The

respondent is granted four (4) weeks to deposit the fine.

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

MARCH 18, 2014                                              V.K. JAIN, J.
b'nesh