New Delhi, October 8, 2025: In a significant ruling that could impact how lawyers use residential spaces in Delhi, the Delhi High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) against senior advocate B.K. Sood, holding that running a legal office does not amount to "commercial activity" under the NDMC Act.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, delivering her 15-page judgment, observed that
"to compare the legal profession with trade or business is a far from correct approach and totally misplaced." The court ruled that professional services like law are fundamentally intellectual in nature and not meant to be treated as commercial enterprises.
The case dates back to 2003, when NDMC inspectors alleged that Sood was misusing the basement of his Golf Apartments, Sujan Singh Park residence by operating an office there. The civic body charged him under Sections 252 and 369(1) of the NDMC Act for "change of use without permission" and initiated criminal prosecution.
Sood, represented by senior advocate A.S. Chandhiok, argued that the complaint was "arbitrary and irrational,' asserting that lawyers offices fall within the category of professional use permitted under the Master Development Plan (MDP) 2001. He contended that the NDMC failed to conduct any real inspection of the premises and that his office complied with all building bye-laws, including being air-conditioned - a specific requirement for basement offices under Clause 14.12.1(vii) of the Delhi Building Bye-Laws, 1983.
NDMC's counsel countered that the basement was sanctioned only for storage and that using it as an office violated the law. However, Justice Krishna disagreed, pointing out that both the MDP 2001 and the Bye-Laws explicitly allow up to 25% of a residence to be used for professional purposes such as legal practice.
Quoting the Supreme Court's observation in M.P. Electricity Board v. Narayan (2005), the judge reiterated that legal work "has no trading or profit-risk character like commerce." She also referred to V. Sasidharan v. Peter and Karunakar (1984), where the apex court held that a lawyer’s office "is not a commercial establishment."
The court noted that NDMC's own inspection report failed to mention any violation concerning ventilation, ceiling height, or air-conditioning - the essential technical parameters for basement use.
'There is nothing to show that the premises did not meet any of the stipulated requirements," the bench remarked.
Calling the two-decade-old complaint a "misuse of process," Justice Krishna said it would serve no public interest to allow the prosecution to continue.
"The case has been pending for more than 22 years and continuing it would choke the judicial system," she observed, ordering that the complaint and all related proceedings be quashed.
The order brings much-needed clarity for professionals - particularly lawyers, architects, and chartered accountants - who often operate from residential premises in Delhi. The decision reinforces that professional use, when compliant with building norms, does not fall under the same restrictions as commercial establishments like shops or factories.
The court concluded succinctly:
"There was no misuse of the premises by the petitioner, who had been running his office in accordance with the MDP 2001 and the Delhi Building Bye-Laws, 1983. The prosecution has failed to show any violation whatsoever."
With this, the Delhi High Court not only lifted the long shadow of litigation over one lawyer but also reaffirmed the line between professional practice and commercial enterprise - a distinction that, as the bench noted, "remains vital to the dignity of the legal profession."
Case Title: B.K. Sood v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation
Case Numbers: CRL.M.C. 4881/2005 and CRL.M.A. 9803/2005