Delhi District Court
Mcd vs Meera Gupta on 24 April, 2025
MCD CHL 2/2024
MCD Vs. MEERA GUPTA
(Karol Bagh)
IN THE COURT OF GOWRI REGHUNATH : JMFC-10
CENTRAL DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURT : DELHI
MCD CHL 2/2024
MCD Vs. MEERA GUPTA
(Karol Bagh)
1. Case No. of the case : 2/2024
2. The date of offence : 19.08.2024
3. The name of the accused : Meera Gupta
w/o Sh. Prahlad
Gupta
4. The offence complained : u/s 417/397/461
DMC Act
5. The plea of the accused : Not guilty
6. Date of institution of the case : 06.09.2024
7. Date of reserving the : 02.04.2025
order
8. The date of order : 24.04.2025
9. The final order : Acquitted
Page No. 1 of 15
MCD CHL 2/2024
MCD Vs. MEERA GUPTA
(Karol Bagh)
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment this court shall dispose of challan no. 58794 of Karol Bagh MCD zone, issued on 19.08.2024 against Meera Gupta, proprietor of M/s New Tech India under Section 417/397/461 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as the DMC Act)
2. In brief, it is the case of the prosecution that on 19.08.2024 accused Meera Gupta was found running a guest house by the name of M/s New Tech India at T-2343 Ashoka Pahari, Main Faiz Road within jurisdiction of MCD zone Karol Bagh having 15 rooms without an MPL Health Trade license, and the same was being run in insanitary and unhygienic conditions, and therefore the present challan under Section 417/397/461 of the DMC Act was issued against her.
3. The challan was forwarded to the court, and the same was taken up on 06.09.2024 and cognizance in respect of the aforementioned offences was taken. Vide order dated 20.12.2025, formal examination of the complainant was dispensed with in accordance with Section 223(1)(a) BNSS as the same was made by Assistant Public Health Inspector (hereinafter referred to as APHI) who is a public servant, in discharge of his official duties.
4. The accused appeared before this court on 20.12.2024 and since the offences involved are bailable in nature, accused Meera Gupta was admitted to bail on furnishing of personal bonds. Notice was framed against the accused under Section 417/397/461of the DMC Act to which the accused pleaded not guilty, and claimed trial.
Page No. 2 of 15 MCD CHL 2/2024MCD Vs. MEERA GUPTA (Karol Bagh) Prosecution Evidence
5. In support of its case, MCD examined only one witness, namely APHI Meetha Lal Meena who issued the present challan.
6. During examination-in-chief, he deposed that he had been working as an APHI in Karol Bagh Zone since 2022. On 19.08.2024, he visited the guest house being operated at the subject premises and met one Kapil Dev Tiwari at the site. Upon asking Kapil Dev Tiwari about whether the establishment possesses an MCD health trade license, he answered in the negative. However, he informed PW-1 that the a bed & breakfast license issued by the Delhi Tourism Department has been issued to the guest house. Upon inspection of the subject premises, PW-1 found that the guest house consisted of 15 rooms without any kitchen or pantry. PW-1 further deposed that the said guest house was being run in insanitary and unhygienic conditions. Thereafter PW-1 issued the present challan and a copy of the same was supplied to Kapil Dev Tiwari. He further deposed that on 10.09.2024, the accused applied online for an MCD health trade license, and it was issued on the same day. The said license is valid till 31.03.2027, and has been granted in respect of 12 rooms to be run without kitchen or pantry.
7. In his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that during his visit to the subject premises, he inspected the guest register maintained at the site, however he admitted that he could not recall the names of any of the guests. He stated that at the time of inspection some guests were staying at the guest house, however he could not recall the number of guests staying there at that time. He denied the suggestion that only six rooms were operational and stated that all fifteen rooms were operational at Page No. 3 of 15 MCD CHL 2/2024 MCD Vs. MEERA GUPTA (Karol Bagh) the time of inspection. He further stated that he clicked photos of the subject premises on his phone, however his phone broke about 15-20 days after issuance of the present challan and he did not get it repaired. He also admitted that the said photographs were not annexed with the challan when the same was forwarded to this court because as a matter of practice, photographs are not annexed with any challan. He further stated that he could not produce his broken phone before this court using which he had clicked the said photographs. He also denied the suggestion that the present challan was issued falsely to harass accused Meera Gupta.
Statement of Accused
8. Vide order dated 24.01.2025, prosecution evidence was closed. Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded under Section 351 BNSS in which all the incriminating material presented in evidence against the accused was put to her. In response to the same, the accused stated that she and her husband reside at the same premises where the run the guest house, and therefore she ensures cleanliness of the premises. She further admitted that the premises consist of fifteen rooms, however only four rooms were functional at the relevant point of time. She further stated that she had a bed and breakfast license in respect of her guest house, but subsequently she procured an MCD health trade license in respect of the same. The accused also opted to lead defence evidence.
Page No. 4 of 15 MCD CHL 2/2024MCD Vs. MEERA GUPTA (Karol Bagh) Defence Evidence
9. In her defence, the accused examined her husband Prahlad Gupta as DW-1 who maintained the guest register of the guest house.
10. He deposed that he resides at the subject premises with his wife accused Meera Gupta, where they have been running a bed and breakfast for the past five and a half years. He further stated that since he and the accused reside in the same premises, they keep it clean and hygienic. He stated that upon commencing operations at the guest house, the accused had initially procured a license issued by the Delhi government for running bed and breakfast in respect of six rooms. The said license was renewed in May 2022 in respect of four rooms only, and since then they have been operating the said bed and breakfast out of four rooms. DW-1 produced the guest register of the period in which the challan was issued Ex. DW1/ A. As per the said register, only four rooms were let out to guests during the relevant period. DW-1 also placed reliance on the National Capital Territory (Incredible India) Bed and Breakfast Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act, 2007 as Mark A (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2007'). He referred to Section 15 of Chapter 3 of the Act of 2007, as per which an establishment having bed and breakfast license under the said legislation, does not require any license issued by any other authority, such as the MCD, NDMC, or the Delhi police.
11. During cross-examination, DW-1 admitted that the accused did not have an MCD license in respect of the guest house as on the date of the challan, however he stated that the guest house did not require an MCD license to operate. He Page No. 5 of 15 MCD CHL 2/2024 MCD Vs. MEERA GUPTA (Karol Bagh) further admitted that subsequent to the issuance of the challan, the accused procured an MCD license on 10.09.2024. He further stated that despite being exempt from the purview of an MCD license, the accused applied for the same as an MCD license would permit them to operate the guest house out of twelve rooms instead of six rooms which was better. Thereafter, defence evidence was closed.
Final arguments
12. During the course of final arguments, Ld. ALO for MCD relied on Section 417 of the DMC Act and submitted that as on the date of the challan, i.e. 19.08.2024, the accused did not have an MCD license. It was further argued that during the course of trial, the accused applied for and procured and MCD license in respect of the said guest house, which is an implied admission on her part that she did not possess an MCD license at the time of the issuance of the present challan. It was submitted that the accused could not claim the benefit of the exemption given by the Act of 2007, as the said legislation is applicable only upon fulfilment of twin conditions, firstly where maximum six rooms are operational and secondly where the owner himself/herself resides at the same premises. It was argued that both these conditions were not fulfilled in the present case, as the accused did not reside at the same premises and the accused was running the guest house with fifteen rooms instead of six.
13. It was further argued that the guest register produced during defence evidence does not prove the defence of the accused as it only shows details of the number of rooms that were occupied during the said period which depends on the number of guests staying there at the relevant point of time, Page No. 6 of 15 MCD CHL 2/2024 MCD Vs. MEERA GUPTA (Karol Bagh) however it does not prove that the guest house only had four rooms and not fifteen rooms. It was also argued that as per oral evidence of PW-1, the guest house was operating with fifteen rooms. It was submitted that thought the same is not supported by any photographic evidence, the absence of the same is duly explained as the phone used to click the photographs is broken. Accordingly, it was prayed that the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore the accused be convicted.
14. Per contra, Ld. LAC for the accused submitted that it has not been proven that the accused was running the guest house with fifteen rooms, and no photographs of the premises showing the number of rooms were filed. It was submitted that the entries in the guest register establish that only four rooms were being allotted to guests during the relevant period, which proves that only four rooms were operational during the said period. It was further argued that no questions were raised by the MCD over the credibility and completeness of the register entries produced by the accused in defence evidence, and the same implies that the said entries are undisputed. It was argued that since the guest house was operating only with four rooms, as per Section 15 of the Act of 2007, it was exempt from an MCD license. It was vehemently argued by Ld. LAC that this challan was issued without any legal basis and resulted in undue harassment to the accused. Accordingly, it was prayed that the accused be duly compensated for the same.
Analysis of evidence I. Using premises as lodging house without MCD health trade license Page No. 7 of 15 MCD CHL 2/2024 MCD Vs. MEERA GUPTA (Karol Bagh)
15. Before delving into the exercise of appreciation of evidence, it would be appropriate to revisit Section 417 of the DMC Act-
Section 417 Premises not to be used for certain purposes without licence.
1) No person shall use or permit to be used any premises for any of the following purposes without or otherwise than in conformity with the terms of a licence granted by the Commissioner in this behalf, namely:--
(a) any of the purposes specified in Part I of the Eleventh Schedule;
(b) any purpose which is, in the opinion of the Commissioner dangerous to life, health or property or likely to create a nuisance;
(c) keeping horses, cattle or other quadruped animals or birds for transportation, sale or hire or for sale of the produce thereof; or
(d) storing any of the articles specified in Part II of the Eleventh Schedule except for domestic use of any those article's:
Provided that the Corporation may declare that premises in which the aggregate quantity of articles stored for sale does not exceed such quantity as may be prescribed by bye-laws in respect of any such articles shall be exempted from the operation of clause (d).
(2) In prescribing the terms of a licence granted under this section for the use of premises as mills or iron yards or for similar purposes the Commissioner may, when he thinks fit, require the licensee to provide a Page No. 8 of 15 MCD CHL 2/2024 MCD Vs. MEERA GUPTA (Karol Bagh) space or passage within the premises for carts for loading and unloading purposes. (3) The Corporation shall fix a scale of fees to be paid in respect of premises licensed under subsection (1)
16. Part 1 of the Eleventh Schedule to the DMC Act outlines the purposes for which premises may not be used without a license as per Section 417 of the DMC Act. Entry No. 15 of the said Schedule relates to keeping of lodging house. The fact that the accused was running a guest house is duly proved by the challan as well as the oral evidence of PW-1. The same is also supported by an admission of DW-1 in his evidence wherein he stated that he and the accused have been running a bed and breakfast at the said premises for about five years.
17. However, it is the case of the accused that the subject premises are exempt from the application of Section 417 of the DMC Act by virtue of the provisions of Act of 2007. Relevant provisions of the same are reproduced below;
Section 2(h) defines 'establishment"
"establishment" means a residential premises registered under Section 3 of this Act where guests are provided bed and breakfast on payment Section 3 Registration (3) the residential premises to be registered as establishment under this Act shall conform to the following conditions, namely:-
a) that the residential premises is purely a residential unit and the owner has been Page No. 9 of 15 MCD CHL 2/2024 MCD Vs. MEERA GUPTA (Karol Bagh) physically residing therein along with his family
b) that the owner shall let out to the guests not more than two-thirds of the bed-rooms consisting of minimum one double-bed room and maximum five double-bed rooms;
Section 15 Establishment not to require license Notwithstanding anything contained in the Sarais Act, 1867, or the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, or the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994, or the Delhi Police Act, 1978 or any other Act relevant to the subject, for the time being in force, the owner of an establishment shall not be required to obtain a license from any authority under the said Act, for the purpose of providing food or lodging services to the guests at his establishment. (emphasis supplied)
18. From the aforementioned provisions, the legal position can be restated as thus; a premises where the owner resides with his family and lets out not more than five double-bed rooms to guests may be registered as an 'establishment' under the Act of 2007. Once it is so registered, Section 15 of the Act of 2007 exempts such an establishment from procuring any license for providing lodging services as required by any other law such as the DMC Act. In other words, Section 417 of the DMC Act will have no application on an establishment which is registered under the Act of 2007.
Page No. 10 of 15 MCD CHL 2/2024MCD Vs. MEERA GUPTA (Karol Bagh)
19. During the course of trial, the accused produced an order dated 06.06.2022 issued by the Department of Tourism, Government of NCT of Delhi as per which the subject premises was granted registration as a bed and breakfast establishment under the Act of 2007 in respect of four rooms. The said order also states that the registration is granted with the condition that the owner of the establishment shall continue to reside in the same premises and shall let out only the rooms which are permitted under this order. The said registration is valid for a period of three years starting from 06.06.2022.
20. The MCD has not disputed the aforesaid registration of the subject premises, however as per the challan and oral testimony of PW-1, the accused was operating the said guest house from fifteen rooms, and not four rooms. It is the case of the MCD that since the same is in violation of the terms of the registration granted under the Act of 2007, Section 15 of the said Act has no application in the said case, and the subject premises are not exempt from an MCD license.
21. In light of this, the crux of the controversy is whether the accused is running four rooms or fifteen rooms in the guest house.
22. The burden of proving that the accused was running the guest house with fifteen rooms lies on the prosecution. In his oral testimony, PW-1 deposed that upon inspection of the subject premises, he found that it contained fifteen rooms, and all of them were operational.
23. In her examination under Section 351 BNSS, accused Meera Gupta admitted that her guest house contains fifteen rooms, however, she stated only four of them were functional.
Page No. 11 of 15 MCD CHL 2/2024MCD Vs. MEERA GUPTA (Karol Bagh) During defence evidence, DW-1 also supported this version and stated that since May 2022 the guest house of the accused was operating out of four rooms.
24. To prove the defence, DW-1 produced the guest register maintained at the guest house which was Ex. DW1/A. The said register contains entries from 23.04.2025 to 08.08.2024. The cover page of the said register contains a list of four serial numbers- 01, 05, 09, and 12. Perusal of the entries in the said register reveals that from April till August 2024, the column of room number contains only one of these four numbers namely 01, 05, 09, 12. Therefore all guests who stayed in the said guest house during the said period were allotted only one of these four rooms.
25. It was argued by Ld. LAC for the accused that since entries spanning over a course of five months reflect that the same four rooms were being allotted to guests, it is proved that only those four rooms were operational during the said period.
26. Per contra, Ld. ALO for MCD submitted that the register entries cannot be relied upon to show the number of rooms operational in the guest house, as the number of rooms occupied may be less at any given point of time based on fewer number of guests willing to avail rooms.
27. However, this Court is not in agreement with the argument raised by Ld. ALO for two reasons. Firstly, if all fifteen rooms were operational, guests may have been allotted any room number other than 01, 05, 09, and 12. However, that is not the case, and the same four room numbers have been allotted to guests repeatedly from April to August 2024. Secondly, no questions were raised on the credibility of the guest register or Page No. 12 of 15 MCD CHL 2/2024 MCD Vs. MEERA GUPTA (Karol Bagh) completeness of its record during cross-examination of DW-1. In the absence of such questions in cross-examination, the defence evidence produced by the accused must be accepted as unchallenged by the prosecution.
28. It is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt rests on the prosecution, and where two views are possible, the accused is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. The entries in the guest register create a cloud of doubt over the version of the prosecution that the accused was operating the guest house with fifteen rooms. Further, despite an admission by PW-1 that he had clicked photographs of the premises showing the number of rooms operational at the relevant point of time, the failure to file the same before this court is also a circumstance which goes in favour of the accused.
29. Therefore, this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused was running her guest house with fifteen rooms. The benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused to presume she was running the same with only four rooms, in compliance of the registration under the Act of 2007. Therefore, by virtue of Section 15 of the Act of 2007, the subject premises were exempt from the legal requirement of procuring a license under Section 417 of the DMC Act.
30. Accordingly, this court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused committed an offence under Section 417/461 DMC Act.
II. Creating nuisance by running a public place in insanitary and unhygienic condition.
Page No. 13 of 15 MCD CHL 2/2024MCD Vs. MEERA GUPTA (Karol Bagh)
31. The relevant sub-sections of Section 397 DMC Act are reproduced hereinbelow:
Section 397: Prohibition of nuisances (1) No person shall-
a) in any public street or public place
vi) being engaged in the removal of rubbish, filth or other polluted and obnoxious matter wilfully or negligently permit any portion thereof to spill or fail, or neglect to sweep away or otherwise effectually to remove any portion thereof which may spill or fall in such street or place; or...
(c) deposit or cause or permit to be deposited, earth or materials of any description or any rubbish or polluted and obnoxious matter in any place not intended for the purpose in any public street or public place or waste or unoccupied land under the management of the Corporation.
32. As far as this offence is concerned, PW-1 stated in his examination-in-chief that the guest house of the accused was being run in unhygienic and insanitary conditions. However, apart from this bare averment, no evidence was led to explain the nature of rubbish, filth, or obnoxious or polluted matter that was deposited in the premises, nor was any material produced to show where and how such waste was disposed or the portion of the premises which was in insanitary condition. Further, despite having clicked photographs during his inspection, no Page No. 14 of 15 MCD CHL 2/2024 MCD Vs. MEERA GUPTA (Karol Bagh) photographs were annexed by the APHI with the challan. In the absence of any details as to the manner in which the said offence was committed, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the commission of the offence under Section 397 DMC Act beyond reasonable doubt.
33. Accordingly, this court finds that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused with respect to the offence under Section 397/461 DMC Act.
Conclusion
34. From the above-mentioned discussion, this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused Meera Gupta stands acquitted for the offences under Section 417/397/461 DMC Act.
Announced in open court today i.e. 24.04.2025.
Digitally signed by GOWRI GOWRI REGHUNATH
REGHUNATH Date: 2025.04.24
16:22:23 +0530
(GOWRI REGHUNATH)
JMFC-10/Central/THC
24.04.2025
It is certified that this judgment contains 15 pages and Digitally signed each page bears my signatures. GOWRI by GOWRI REGHUNATH REGHUNATH Date: 2025.04.24 16:22:28 +0530 (GOWRI REGHUNATH) JMFC-10/Central/THC 24.04.2025 Page No. 15 of 15