The Hon’ble High Court was considering a issue that whether user of portion of house for consultation work by lawyer and study by his son can be termed as professional establishment and premises can be termed as business building and levy of property tax on such premises was permissible or not.

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in this case observed that there is a fundamental distinction between a professional establishment and professional activity.

The distinction between ‘professional activity and ‘professional establishment’ can be illustrated by the following example. A ‘professional’s office would be a ‘professional establishment’ when the usage of the office space is in excess of the conditions stipulated in Clause 15.8 of the MPD 2021 or if the said office is situated in a building designated as commercial or business in the MPD 2021 and Zonal Plan. In the opinion of this Court, a premise would not become business premise just because a lawyer read his office file or did some official work at his residence.

Thus, the High Court held that user of portion of house for consultation work by lawyer and study by his son cannot be termed as professional establishment and premises cannot be termed as business building and levy of property tax on such premises is illegal. (Referred Bombay High Court Sakharam Narayan Kherdekar v.City of Nagpur Corporation and others AIR 1964 Bombay 200  (Bombay Shops and Estblsihement Act , 1948)