Answering a crucial question for legal professionals, the High Court of Delhi has affirmed that a lawyer can operate a chamber from the basement of a residential property. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna ruled that such professional activity does not constitute a ‘commercial activity’ and is permissible under Delhi’s Master Plan and building regulations, leading to the quashing of a 22-year-old criminal complaint against an advocate.
The judgment, delivered on October 8, 2025, concluded criminal proceedings initiated by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) against Advocate B. K. Sood. The NDMC had alleged illegal misuse of a residential basement for running a law office.
Background of the Dispute
The case dates back to an NDMC inspection on October 27, 2003, at the residence of Advocate B. K. Sood at Golf Apartments, Sujan Singh Park. The corporation filed a complaint alleging that Sood was illegally using the basement for a non-residential purpose, thereby committing an offence under Section 252 of the NDMC Act, 1994. A trial court took cognizance of the complaint in 2004, prompting Sood to challenge the proceedings in the High Court.
Core Legal Issues and Arguments
The petitioner contended that the professional service of a lawyer, which relies on intellectual skill and academic qualifications, cannot be equated with a ‘commercial activity’ involving capital and trade. It was also argued that the Delhi Building Bye-Laws, 1983, explicitly permit the use of a basement for an office, provided it is air-conditioned—a condition that was met.
The NDMC argued that the issue was not the nature of the activity but the unauthorized change of use. It claimed the basement was sanctioned only for ‘storage/godown’ purposes, and operating an office from there without permission was a clear violation of the law.
Court’s Definitive Findings
The High Court decisively settled the two primary legal questions.
First, on whether a lawyer’s office is a commercial activity, the Court held it is not. Justice Krishna relied on several Supreme Court precedents, including M.P. Electricity Board and Others v. Narayan and Another, stating, “The expression, commerce or commercial necessarily has a concept of a trading activity… But in legal profession, there is no such kind of buying or selling nor any trading of any kind whatsoever.” The Court concluded that “the activity of running an Office by the Lawyer is not a commercial activity.”
Second, on the legality of using the basement, the Court found it was permitted by the existing legal framework. The judgment referred to the Master Development Plan (MDP), 2001, which allows professionals to use a part of their residence for their work. More specifically, the Court pointed to Clause 14.12.1.1(vii) of the Delhi Building Bye-Laws, 1983, which states a basement can “be used for office or commercial purpose provided it is air-conditioned.”
The Court noted that the NDMC’s inspection report failed to show any violation of these bye-laws. “It has to be necessarily concluded that there was no misuse of the premises by the Petitioner,” the judgment read.
Final Verdict
Citing the prolonged duration of the case, the Court deemed the continued prosecution an “abuse of the process of the law.” Invoking the principles laid down in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, Justice Krishna observed that allowing a 22-year-old case for a minor offence to proceed would “choke the judicial system.”
Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and quashed Complaint No. 487/2004 and all related proceedings, providing significant relief to the petitioner and clarity for professionals across the city.
