LexSMT. MUKUL RANI V ARSHNEI AND ORS. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
- SMT. MUKUL RANI V ARSHNEI AND ORS. A v. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ANR. SEPTEMBER 19, 1995 (A.S. ANAND AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.] B Delhi Development Act-1957 : Ss.14, 29(2)-Property let out-Tenant putting it to commercial us~DDA granting pemiission and extending upto a point of time-Later C issuing show cause notice to owne1~Launching of prosecution-Owners convictecHJpheld in appeal and revision-Held, in the absence of oral or documenta1y evidence, conviction could not have been recorded-Conviction and sentence set aside. The appellants let out its property and the tenants applied to DDA D for permission for using the property for commercial purposes, known as non-conforming purpose. Permission was granted and extended from time to time. In January, 1983, appellants received a notice from DDA asking them to show cause as to why they should not be prosecuted for violating S.14 of the Delhi Development Act. 1957 on the ground that the appellants had permitted the tenant to use the property in contravention of the provisions of the Master Plan and the Zonal Development Plan of Delhi. Appellants replied that they had not given any permission to the tenants to use the property for non-confirming purposes. Thereafter DDA asked the appellants to stop the tenant from misusing the property within 15 days, failing which prosecution under S.29(2) would be launched against the appellants. Appellants replied reiterating their earlier stand. They also sent a notice to the tenant through their lawyer, calling upon it to imme- diately stop the commercial use of the property. E F DDA launched a prosecution against the appellants for violation of G S.14 of the Act, punishable under S.29(2) of the Act. The appellants were convicted and a fine of Rs. 1500 on each of the four appellants was imposed. Their appeal and subsequent revision petition stood dismissed. Hence this appeal. Allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction and sentence, H 803 "'" A B c D E F G 804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. this Court HELD ; 1.1. From a bare reading of Section 14 of the Delhi Develop- ment Act, 1957 it is obvious that a person can be said to violate the Plan, if he uses or pennits to be used the property othenvise than in conformity with the Master/Zonal Plan. The allegations against the appellants is that they had permitted the tenant to use the property for commercial purposes in violation of the Master Plan. [806-C] 1.2. In the instanlt case, there is no legal evidence led by the prosecu- tion to show that the appellants had pemiitted the property to be used by the tenant in violation of the Master Pian for non-confirming purposes. The only witness who appeared on behalf of the respondent before the Trial Court in support of their case, viz. the Junior Engineer, DDA, (PW 2) deposed that the tenant had told him that he had been permitted by the appellants to use the property for commercial purposes. This is hearsay evidence and clearly not admissible. The tenant was not examined as a witness in the case. PW2 expressed total ignorance as to whether the tenant was actually using the property as commercial property with the pemiission of the landlord or not. No other oral or documentary evidence was led in support of the allegation against the appellant. Thus the courts below fell in error in convicting tht! appellants without any legal evidence on the record. [806-D-G] CRIMINAL APPELLATE.JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 1991. From the Judgment and Order dated 31.1.90 of the Delhi High Court in Crl. Rev. P. No. 246 of 1989. Sushil Kumar, R.P., Wadhwani and Samir Tandon & Sanjeev Ralli for the Appellants. Arun J aithley and Ms. Kamini J aiswal for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : . The appellants let out the property in question to M/s. Tufted Carpets and Woolen industries Limited (subsequently the name of the tenants was changed to M/s. Trans Asia Carpets Ltd.) in July, 1978. The H tenants applied for permission to respondent No. 1, for using the said "' ..... .... .. M.R. V ARSHNEI v. D.D.A 805 property for commercial purposes, known as non- conforming purpose, A Permission was granted and extended from time to time by respondent No. 1 till September 1981, though the tenants kept representing to the authorities for extension of time to stop the use of the premises for commercial purposes. In Januar
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.