Manmohan, J.

1. The issue that arises for consideration in the present proceedings is whether a portion of the residential building being used as a lawyer’s office in accordance with the parameters specified in the Master Plan for Delhi 2021 (for short ‘MPD 2021’) falls within the ambit and scope of a ‘business building’ as defined in Bye-law 9(b) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Property Taxes) Bye-Laws, 2004 (for short ‘Bye-Laws, 2004’) for the purpose of levy of property tax under the unit area method introduced by Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Act, 2003.

FACTS

2. The admitted facts are that the petitioner is the owner and occupier of the property bearing No. E-403, Greater Kailash-II, New Delhi which is built on 250 square yards of land and comprises the ground floor, first floor and the Barsati. The petitioner resides in the aforesaid house along with his wife and his elder son who is a practicing lawyer in this Court.

3. On 21st November, 2013, the residence of the petitioner was inspected by the MCD officials and it was found that the drawing room comprising 30 sq. mtr. (323 sq. ft.) approximately out of 334 sq. mtr. (3,594 sq. ft.) covered area was being used as a lawyer’s office.

IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER

4. On 22nd November, 2013, the respondent-Corporation passed the impugned assessment order by treating the portion of the drawing room as business building and emphasizing that the portion of the house being used for consultation work and study by the petitioner’s son made it a professional establishment which was a ‘business building’ in accordance with Bye-law 9 of Bye-Laws, 2004. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“As per inspection report of the AZI dated 21.11.2013, tax payer is used Drawing Room for lawyers office which is certainly a professional activity and not a residential activity. Hence, the AV of the portion under use of professional activity is determined as under:

Floor Unit Area Value (Rs. Per sq. mts.) Covered Area (in sq. mts.) Age Factor Structure Factor Occupancy Factor Use Factor Annual Value Date of Effect

GF Part 500 30 1 1 1 4 60000 1.4.2004

To sum up the AV is fixed at Rs.60,000/- p.a. (NR) w.e.f. 1.4.2004.

The above AV is fixed on the basis of information/documents available on record. In case, if any information if found to be contrary, in future, the order shall be amended accordingly.

Area Inspector is directed to compute the property tax, levy interest @ 1% for every month or part of the month till the amount is realized under UAM as per provisions of Section 123D of the DMC Act. Tax payer is requested to make payment of property tax within 15 days of the receipt of this order and property tax bill/demand.”

PETITIONER‘S SUBMISSIONS

5. Mr. Sunil Magon, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a lawyer’s office is neither a business establishment nor a commercial establishment or an industry.

6. Mr. Magon contended that the self-occupied premise, predominantly used for residence, would not loose its character and would not become a professional establishment within the definition of ‘business building’ if a portion of the same was used for rendering professional advice or self study by a lawyer. He stated that in the present instance no portion of the residence could be termed as a business building.

7. In support of his submission, Mr. Magon relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Sakharam Narayan Kherdekar v. City of Nagpur Corporation and others AIR 1964 Bombay 200 wherein it has been held that an office of an advocate is not covered under the expression ‘commercial establishment’ under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“26. Thus, the very concept of any activity which can justly be called a commercial activity, must imply some investment of capital and the activity, must run the risk of profit or loss. Understood i