The proviso to Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, permits the continuance of a non-conforming user of land or building prior to the coming into force of the Master Plan, even if regulations prescribing terms and conditions for such continuance have not been framed.

( 1 ) RESPONDENT, S. Ganga Singh, was prosecuted under S. 29 (2) read with section 14 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter called the Act ) on a complaint filed by the appellant, Delhi Development Authority, on the allegation that he on or about 19th September 1964, had permitted the ground floor and Ist floor of the building bearing No. H-89, Ring Road, N. D. S. E.-1 for the purpose of running office of various concerns, namely, Gupta Property Dealers, Navyug Property Dealers and Cirugia Delux Pvt. Ltd. , in the contravention of the Master Plan of Delhi and Section 14 of the Act.

( 2 ) THE Trial Court by its impugned judgment dated 28th October, 1975, acquitted Ganga Singh by giving him benefit of doubt holding that the prosecution had not conclusively proved the case against him.

( 3 ) THE Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter called the authority ) has filed the present appeal feeling aggrieved by the above-said judg- ment.

( 4 ) BRIEF facts of the case arc as follows. Harish Chander Tulsiani, Sectional Officer of the Authority visited premises bearing No. H-89, N. D. S. E. Part I, New Delhi, on 30th October, 1968, and found that three concerns of property dealers under the name and style of Gupta Property Dealers, Navyug Property Dealers, Jain Property Dealers and the office of Cirugia Delux Pvt. Ltd. , were functioning in the ground floor and first floor of the building. Enquiries made by him revealed that the said office had been functioning in the building since the year 1964. The premises fall within the medium density zone No. D-20 and the user of the building being against the provisions of the Master Plan and section 14 of the Act, Shri Tulsiani made a report to his department. Consequently, a complaint under section 29 (2) read with section 14 of the Act was filed against the respondent.

( 5 ) IN support of its complaint, the appellant examined Harish Chander Tulsiani, who appearing as Public Witness Public Witness 1 supported the above-noted allegation. In his cross-examination, he conceded that he did not examine the lease agreements of the concerns whose offices were being run in the building adding that the same were not shown to him. He did not contact the landlord of the building. He also did not try to ascertain the possible date of the commencement of the misuser of the building.

( 6 ) THE only other witness examined was Sita Ram (Public Witness 1 ) a clerk from the appellant s office who proved resolution No. 8 dated 15th January, 1958, copy Exhibit Public Witness Public Witness I/a, on the basis of which the present complaint was filed against the respondent. No other witness was examined to corroborate the version of Harish Chander Tulsiani that the building was being put to the non-conforming user since September, 1964.

( 7 ) GANGA Singh, respondent, in his statement recorded under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, asserted that the premises in question were being used for non-conforming purpose prior to 1961. In fact he had put the said suggestion to Harish Chander Tulsiani who of course gave the usual reply that he did not know whether the premises were being used for the office purposes since 1961.

( 8 ) TO substantiate his claim that the premises in question were being utilized for the non-conforming user prior to 1961, Ganga Singh examined S. G. Jain (DW 1) who stated that he was a tenant in a portion of the house in question which he had taken on rent on 1st August, 1961, in which he is running his office as a property dealer. He had not kept the original rent receipts or the old record to vouchsafe for the correctness of his claim but admitted his signatures on the counter-foils. Exhibit DW I/i to DW 1/26. There is no challenge to these receipts which assume importance in view of the categorical statement of the witness that since his income was not taxable, he did not keep the old record. It is significant here to note that the witness had produced a