R. N. A. ggarwal, J.

( 1 ) THIS judgment shall also dispose of Criminal -Appeal Nos. 131/76, 132/76, 263/76, 264/76, 265. /76 and 266/76 since they involve common questions of fact and law.

( 2 ) THE respondent K. P. Shankara is the owner of the building bearing No. 11, Babar Lane, Bengali Market, New Delhi. On 17th February 1973 the field staff of the Delhi Development Authority reported that the owner of premises bearing No. 11 Babar Lane was using the said building in contravention of the Master Plan of Delhi. After obtaining sanction for the proiccution on 1st June 1973, the Secretary, Delhi Development Authority filed a complaint under Section 29 (2) of the Delhi Development Act against the respondent. Thallegation in Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 1976 is that the respondent had let out one room on the first floor, 11 Babar Lane New Delhi to M/s. Payen and Go. who were using the said room as an office which is in contravention of the Master Plan. The allegation in the other complaints is similar, only the names of the tenants arc different.

( 3 ) THE respondent in his examination at the trial stated that he had filed a suit against M/s. New Delhi Traders Association (Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 1976) for their eviction and the said suit is pending in the court of Shri R. Dayal. Regarding Messrs Payen and Co. (Criminal Appeal No. 130 of 1976) the respondent stated that the said tenant was using the demised premises only for residential purpose. Regarding the tenant Messrs. Tag India (Criminal Appeal No. 266 of 1976) the respondent stated that he had served a notice on Mrs. Poorvi Pandey Executive Director for vacating the premises and further had also filed a suit for eviction. Regarding Travel Advisers (Criminal Appeal No. 132 of 1976) the respondent stated that they had vacated the building soon after the receipt of notice from the Delhi Development Authority. Regarding the tenant Messrs. Datta Ram Advertising Private Limited (Criminal Appeal No. 263 of 1976) the respondent stated that on receipt of the notice from the Delhi Development Authority he gave notice to the tenant who had since vacated the premises. Regarding the tenant M/s. Oriental Travel Service (Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 1976) the respondent stated that he had given the Barsati floor to the said tenant in 1972 for office-cum-residence and that the dominant purpose was residence. Regarding the Monitoring Services (Criminal Appeal No. 265 of 1976) the respondent stated that they vacated the premises after the notice from the Delhi Development Authority.

( 4 ) THE trial Magistrate on an appreciation of the evidence found that the building 11 Babar Lane under the Master Plan could only be used for residence and the respondent had permitted the user of the said premises for non-residential purpose; accordingly the Metropolitan Magistrate found the respondent guilty of the offence charged with and sentenced him to a fine of Rs. 1500. 00 and in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month in Criminal Appeal No. 264 of 1976; to a fine of Rs. 1000. 00 and in default simple imprisonment for 20 days in Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 1976; to a fine of Rs. 600. 00 and in default simple imprisonment for 15 days in Criminal Appeal No. 265 of 1976; and in each of the four other appeals to a fine of Rs. 400. 00 and in default of payment of fine to simple imprisonment for 10 days.

( 5 ) AGAINST his conviction and sentence the respondent filed appeal in all the cases. The appeals were heard by Shri D. G. Aggarwal, Additional Sessions Judge, who allowed all the appeals on 23rd September 1975. The learned Additional Sessions Judge was of the view that Section 29 (2) of the Delhi Development Act only punishes the actual user of the property and not the landlord or owner who had let out the premises or permitted the user in contravention of the Master Plan. We may straightaway say that the question whether Section 29 (2) only applied to a person who himself misused or

Click Here to Read the rest of this document