Ram Nath Suraj Singh Rishi Kumar vs N.D.M.C. & Another
2009 Latest Caselaw 135 Del

*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+    LPA 13/2009

     RAM NATH SURAJ SINGH RISHI KUMAR ..... Appellant
                 Through Mr. A.K. Singla, Sr. Advocate with
                 Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate.

                 versus

     N.D.M.C. & ANR.                ..... Respondents
                    Through Ms. Madhu Tewatia & Ms. Sidhi
                    Arora, Advocates for respondent No. 1.
                    Mr. S.K. Pruthi & Mr. Manoj Ahuja, Advocates
                    for respondent No. 2.

     CORAM:
     HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

               ORDER

% 16.01.2009

1. The appellant-landlord has filed a suit for injunction against

respondent No. 2, the tenant- Punjab National Bank on the ground

that the tenant should not carry out any construction and should not

make additions/alterations in the premises.

2. The appellant also filed W.P.(C) No. 4222/2007 questioning the

sanction dated 6th March, 2007 granted by N.D.M.C. permitting

respondent No. 2 to carry out internal additions and alterations. The

appellant had contended that the N.D.M.C. should not have

sanctioned internal additions/alterations on an application made by a tenant without approval and no objection from the owner. By the

impugned order, the writ petition has been dismissed.

3. We agree with the learned Single Judge that the question of

ownership and right of respondent-tenant to apply for sanction of

building plans is not required to be examined in the present case.

Learned Single Judge has held that the additions/alterations

undertaken by the respondent No. 2 are covered by bye law No. 6.4.1

for which no sanction or permission is required from N.D.M.C. This is

also the stand of N.D.M.C. In these circumstances, grant of sanction

to carry out internal additions/alterations to respondent No. 2 by

N.D.M.C. by letter dated 6th March, 2007, communication dated 24th

April, 2007 and the subsequent withdrawal of the said communication

by letter dated 18th May, 2007 are inconsequential. When no

sanction itself is required, the question of right of respondent No. 2

tenant to apply for sanction/permission is rendered meaningless and

futile. Right of the respondent-tenant to apply for sanction of the

building plans need not be examined.

4. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and

the same is dismissed. However, it is recorded that the findings

recorded by the learned Single Judge and in this order are on the

basis of oral submissions made by the parties and these findings will

not be binding in the Suit No. 189/2007, which is pending between the parties. The said findings will also not be binding in eviction

proceedings, if any, or any other proceedings which are pending or

may be filed.

CHIEF JUSTICE

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

JANUARY 16, 2009 VKR