Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Munshi Ram And Ors.
1987 Latest Caselaw 450 Del

JUDGMENT

Charanjit Talwar, J.

(1) This is an appeal filed by Municipal Corporation Delhi (Hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation') challenging the acquittal of Respondent-Munshi Ram and Upendar Kumar for offence under Section 349(4) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(2) Munshi Ram was tenant inthepremisesNo.1l40/7GaliSamosha, Farash, Khana, Delhi. Upendar Kumar is the owner of the house. On 17.11.79, the said house was inspected by the Junior Engineer of the Corporation who found that it was in a dangerous condition and required immediate repairs. The notice was issued under Section 348(4) of the Act to the tenant as well as the owner for getting the said portion repaired within 15 days of the service of the notice. Since repairs were not carried out, complaint was made by the Corporation against the present two respondents under Section 348(1) of the Act read with Section 461 of the Act.

(3) By the impugned Judgment, the Ld. M.M. acquitted the Respondents on the short ground that u/s 348 the Act, notice was contemplated only either on the occupier or the owner. The relevant portion of that Section reads as under :

"348(1).If it appears to the Commissioner, at any time, that any building is in a ruinous condition or likely to fall or in any way dangerous to anybody occupying and resorting to or passing by such building, or any other building, people in the neighborhood of such building, the Commissioner, may by order in writing, require, the owner or the occupier of such building, to demolish, secure or repair such building or do one or more of such things within such period as may be specified in the order, so as to prevent all cause of danger there from."

(4) The interpretation by the Ld. Magistrate that the said provisions require serving of notice u/s 348(1) of the Act.

(5) Mr. Seth, Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 2 agreed that the word "or" can be and in the present case, ought to be read as "and". In our view, the notice could have been issued to both the tenants as well as the owner. In a given case, it can be issued either to the tenant or to the owner. The provision cannot be restricted to read that only one of them is to be served with the notice. In this view of the matter, the impugned judgment is likely to be set aside and we direct accordingly.

(6) We hold the respondent guilty of the offence u/s 348(1) r/w Section 461 of the Act. But keeping in view that offence was committed as far back in the year 1979 and further keeping in view the submission of Mr. Seth that the house in question has been repaired, we impose a fine of Rs. 100.00 on the owner Shri Upendar Kumar. The fine should be deposited within a month in the court of the concerned Magistrate.