Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a criminal prosecution under the Delhi Development Act, 1957. The appellants, as landlords, had let out their property to M/S Tufted Carpets and Woolen Industries Limited (later renamed M/S Trans Asia Carpets Ltd.) in July 1978. The tenant obtained permission from the Delhi Development Authority to use the property for commercial purposes, described as a non-conforming use, and this permission was extended until September 1981. Later, the Authority issued a show cause notice dated 3 December 1982 to the appellants, asking them to show cause why they should not be prosecuted for violating Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act, 1957, on the ground that they had permitted the tenant-company to use the property contrary to the Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan of Delhi. The appellants replied denying any knowledge of such misuse and asserting that they had not given permission for non-conforming use. Subsequently, through a communication dated 24 March 1983, the Authority asked the appellants to stop the misuse within fifteen days, failing which prosecution under Section 29(2) would be launched. The appellants again controverted the allegations and also sent a notice to the tenant to stop commercial use. Prosecution was nevertheless launched. The trial Magistrate convicted the appellants on 1 April 1985 and imposed a fine of Rs. 1500 on each of the four appellants. Their appeal to the Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, was dismissed on 17 July 1989, and their revision petitions before the High Court were dismissed in limine. They then approached the Supreme Court by special leave. The core legal issue was whether the appellants could be convicted for permitting non-conforming use when the only evidence of permission was hearsay. Section 14 of the Delhi Development Act prohibits any person from using or permitting the use of any land or building in a zone otherwise than in conformity with the Master Plan or Zonal Plan. The prosecution alleged that the appellants had permitted the tenant to use the property for commercial purposes in violation of the Master Plan. However, the only witness produced by the prosecution, PW2, a Junior Engineer of DDA, deposed that the tenant had told him that the landlords had permitted commercial use. The Court held that this testimony was hearsay and clearly inadmissible. The tenant was not examined as a witness, and PW2 expressed total ignorance as to whether the tenant was actually using the property with the permission of the landlords. No other oral or documentary evidence was led to support the allegation. The Court concluded that in the absence of any legal evidence showing that permission had been granted by the appellants to the tenant, no conviction could have been recorded. The lower courts had fallen into error by convicting the appellants without legal evidence on record. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitted the appellants, and directed that the fine already paid be refunded.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Evidence - Hearsay Evidence - Conviction under Section 14 read with Section 29(2) of Delhi Development Act, 1957 - Landlords were prosecuted for allowing tenant to use residential premises for commercial/non-conforming use; only prosecution witness (Junior Engineer DDA) testified that tenant told him landlords permitted commercial use, which is hearsay and inadmissible; tenant not examined; no other oral or documentary evidence. Held that conviction cannot be based on hearsay; appeal allowed, conviction and sentence set aside, fine refunded (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants could be convicted under Section 14 read with Section 29(2) of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 for permitting the tenant to use property for non-conforming commercial purposes in absence of legal evidence proving such permission.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellants acquitted; fine paid shall be refunded.
Law Points
- Section 14 of Delhi Development Act
- 1957 prohibits use or permitting use of land or building in contravention of Master/Zonal Plan
- conviction under Section 14 read with Section 29(2) requires legal evidence that the accused permitted non-conforming use
- hearsay evidence of tenant's statement to DDA official is inadmissible to prove landlord's permission
- in absence of such evidence
- conviction cannot be sustained.
