Delhi High Court
Manjeet Singh & Ors. vs Commissioner, Mcd & Ors. on 9 December, 2011
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on : 09.12.2011
+ W.P.(C) 6138/2011 and CMs 12381/2011, 18286/2011
IN THE MATTER OF
MANJEET SINGH & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Pushkar Sood, Advocate with
Mr. Shalabh Rastogi, Advocate
versus
COMMISSIONER, MCD & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, Standing
Counsel, R-1/MCD.
Mr. Shoaib Haider, Advocate for
Mr. Najmi Waziri, Standing Counsel
(Civil), GNCTD for R-2/Delhi Police.
Mr. Zafar Sadique, Advocate for R-3.
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition is filed by the petitioners praying inter alia for
directions to respondent No.1/MCD and respondent No.2/Delhi Police to
take immediate action to stop demolition of the existing structure and the
fresh construction undertaken by respondent No.3 in property bearing
No.643-648 and 674-675, Ward No.7, Farash Khana, Delhi-110006.
2. It is averred in the petition that the petitioners are tenants on the
ground floor of the subject premises, which comprises of a first and
second floor as well. It is stated that by 22.08.2011, respondent No.3
had demolished the entire first and second floor of the subject premises,
against which action, the petitioners had made complaints to respondent
No.1/MCD and to the local police on 23.08.2011, but as neither of them
took any action, they were compelled to file the present petition.
3. Notice was issued on the present petition on 24.08.2011, returnable
for today. On the same date, respondent No.3 was restrained from
carrying out any further demolition on the first floor of the subject
premises. In the meantime, respondent No.3 filed an application for stay
registered as CM 18286/2011 praying inter alia for vacation of stay by
recalling the order dated 24.08.2011. The said application was adjourned
for today. Further, respondent No.1/MCD was directed to file a status
report in the matter.
4. A status report is handed over by the counsel for respondent
No.1/MCD, wherein it is stated that after passing of the aforesaid orders
by this Court, the subject property was inspected and it was noticed that
the owner/occupier of the premises had demolished the entire first and
second floors and as on date, only the ground floor and two rooms with a
Mumty on the first floor existed at the premises. Alongwith the affidavit,
a couple of photographs of the subject premises have been enclosed.
Besides the aforesaid affidavit, respondent No.1/MCD has also filed a
reply to CM 18286/2011, wherein it is stated that vide letter dated
14.07.2011, respondent No.3 had been permitted to only carry out
requisite repairs in the old existing building as per Section 6.4.1 of the
Unified Building Bye-laws, but the said permission did not authorize him
to reconstruct the building, however, on inspection of the site, it was
found that under the garb of repairing the existing building, respondent
No.3 was intending to raise a new construction after dismantling the old
one. As a result, respondent No.3 was called upon to stop any further
demolition action.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.3, wherein
heavy reliance has been placed on the letter dated 14.07.2011 issued by
respondent No.1/MCD, permitting respondent No.3 to carry out minor
repairs such as plastering and re-flooring etc. in the subject premises with
a specific note that reconstruction would not be allowed. Inspite of the
clear mandate of respondent No.1/MCD, learned counsel for respondent
No.3 insists that his client was permitted reconstruction of the subject
premises on the strength of the aforesaid permission dated 14.07.2011.
The basis of the said submission is that when respondent No.3 had
commenced the work of plastering/re-flooring, the entire structure, which
he claims was in a dangerous position, had started to further degenerate
and collapse, which is why respondent No.3 was left with no option but to
demolish both the first and second floors.
6. If such was the case, as alleged by respondent No.3, then he was
under an obligation to have approached respondent No.1/MCD for seeking
permission to raze down the existing construction at site on the ground
that it was in a dangerous condition and then seek sanction for
constructing the first and second floors of the subject premises afresh.
Admittedly, no such steps have been taken by respondent No.3 till date.
7. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to concur with the
submission of the counsel for the petitioners that the aforesaid
clandestine exercise was undertaken by respondent No.3 solely with the
intention of displacing the petitioners, who are old tenants in the subject
premises and against whom, admittedly till date no legal remedies have
been sought by respondent No.3 by filing a suit for eviction, possession
etc or invoking the provisions of the Delhi Rent Control Act.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present
petition is disposed of with directions to respondent No.1/MCD to ensure
that no further construction is carried out at the subject premises without
an appropriate sanction plan being obtained in that regard. Respondent
No.1/MCD as also respondent No.2/Delhi Police shall ensure that the
aforesaid order is complied with in letter and spirit.
9. As the petitioners have been compelled to approach this Court on
account of inaction on the part of respondents No.1/MCD and respondent
No.2/Delhi Police, who were under a statutory duty to take necessary
steps to ensure that respondent No.3 did not carry out any construction
under the garb of renovation/repair and having regard to the fact that
respondent No.3 has tried to take undue advantage of the permission
granted to him by respondent No.1/MCD vide letter dated 14.07.2011 to
carry out minor repairs in the subject premises, the present petition is
disposed of while imposing costs of `20,000/- on respondent No.3 and
further costs of `10,000/- each on respondent No.1/MCD and respondent
No.2/Delhi Police to be paid to the petitioners through counsel within two
weeks from today. It is further directed that the costs imposed on
respondent No.1/MCD and respondent No.2/Delhi Police shall be
recovered from the defaulting officers and affidavits shall be filed by the
Executive Engineer (Building), MCD and the concerned DCP of Delhi Police
after making recoveries from them.
(HIMA KOHLI)
DECEMBER 9, 2011 JUDGE
rkb
