Delhi High Court

Asiad Village Society vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 February, 2011

Author: Veena Birbal

*            HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


%                           Judgment delivered on: February 8, 2011


+     W.P.(C) 1657/1993

ASIAD VILLAGE SOCIETY                                ..... Petitioner


                        -versus-


UNION OF INDIA & ORS                               .... Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner :          Mr. M.L. Lahoty with Mr. Praban K.
                              Sharma, Advocates

For the Respondent      :     Ms. Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate for
                              Respondent no.2/DDA.
                              Mr. Mukesh Gupta with Mr. Anshum Jain
                              & Ms. Suparna Srivastava, Advocates for
                              Respondent no.3/MCD.
                              Mr. H.L. Raina, Advocate for Respondent
                              No.6/ Mr. Mahesh Kapoor.
                              Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate for
                              Respondent- Jhankar Banquet.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL


1.    Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
      see the judgment? yes

2.    To be referred to the Reporter or not? yes

3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? yes

Veena Birbal, J.

1. The petitioner is a society registered under Regulation 41 of

the Delhi Development Authority (Management & Disposal of

Housing Estates) Regulations, 1968 framed by Delhi

Development Authority in exercise of its power under Section 57

of the Delhi Development Act, 1957. The members of the society

are various residents and allottees of the dwelling units at Asian

Village complex. The case of the petitioner is that Asiad Village

was originally conceived and constructed by DDA as Housing

Complex. In the year 1983, after the Asian Games were over the

residential units in the complex were offered to Non-Resident

Indians. However, as the response to the offer to NRIs was very

poor, the remaining dwelling units were offered to the Public

Sector Corporations and Companies. On again finding

inadequate response, in the year 1986, the units were offered to

the general public. It is stated that about 853 houses were

offered as per the terms contained in the brochure published by

DDA.

2. The petitioner further states that pursuant to the above

representation of DDA, its members applied for allotment of

dwelling units and were ultimately allotted the units on 99 years

lease. It is alleged that DDA for these units charged prices which

were many times higher than the prevailing market price in

respect of similar units sold by DDA in and around Asiad Village

Complex. It is alleged that the prices were kept high only

because DDA offered the said units as part of a prestigious

complex and having exclusive services not available to the

residents of other dwelling units constructed and sold by DDA in

its various schemes at Delhi.

3. The petitioner proceeds to submit that it was obligatory on

the part of DDA to hand over all common areas within the Asian

Village Complex to it (petitioner society) for the purpose of

provision of all facilities mentioned in the brochure.

4. It is alleged that though the residents paid substantial

amount of money towards the consideration for allotment which

was much higher than the cost of construction of the whole

complex, DDA in connivance with the Union of India gradually

started alienating parts of the Asiad Sport Complex to various

agencies. Dining hall area of the complex was handed over to

Doordarshan wherein Doordarshan has established a huge studio

known as CPC. DDA has constructed a Sport Complex which is

now being used as a club for which membership fee is being

charged and which the outsiders (people not residing in the

complex) are allowed to use. In addition DDA has alienated parts

of the complex to various parties such as BHEL, Central

Government, etc.

5. At this stage it may be noted that there is an overhead

water tank at the Complex. After the same was built, it was

thought that the same would look ugly and accordingly the same

was camouflaged by a construction built around it, which is

known as "Tower Restaurant". At the time the petition was filed,

DDA was contemplating leasing out the Tower Restaurant to third

parties. The petitioner in the writ petition makes particular

reference to the attempted alienation of Water Tower/Tower

Restaurant to an outsider which is likely to cause much

inconvenience to the residents of the area. It is stated that the

said tower is basically a water tank catering to the requirements

of storage and supply of water to the entire complex and, thus it

is an integral part of the water supply system of the complex. It

is alleged that in the event DDA permits any third party to open

and run the restaurant on top of the tower, the same will cause

shortage of water available for the residents. It is also alleged

that the area in which the tower is situated is a „green belt‟ and

thus even otherwise, the DDA has no right to lease out the tower

for running the restaurant. It is alleged that in any event, all

these areas are part of the common area within the exclusive

jurisdiction of the petitioner and DDA has no right to lease out the

said areas or the tower to any outsider in any manner.

6. The petitioner also points out that the Siri Fort situated in

the complex is a historical monument as the same constitutes

archaeological ruins of a fortified city built by Alaudin Khilji and

two other mosques built in Lodi period. It is alleged that instead

of preserving the archaeological remains of the area, DDA is

ruining the aesthetic, historical and ecological value of the

complex.

7. The petitioner refers to correspondence exchanged between

the petitioner and various other agencies. It is alleged that

ignoring the law, DDA has continued with its illegal and arbitrary

actions.

8. In the circumstances, the petitioner prays as follows:

"a) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be passed directing the Respondent No.2 to transfer all common areas and buildings including parks, green areas, Tower, Parking lots, roads etc. to petitioner Society for the exclusive use of the Society for discharge of its functions under its constitution;

b) a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition be passed restraining Respondent No.2 from handing over any part of the Asiad Village Complex to any other person, authority, company or private party for any purposes whatsoever including leasing out of the Tower and areas appurtenant thereto to third parties for running of restaurant which constitutes change of user contrary to not only Zonal and Master Plan but also provisions of Delhi Urban Arts Commission Act;

c) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be passed directing the Respondent No.2 to discharge its statutory functions by fencing of the entire area of Asiad Village Complex, maintenance of roads, removal of garbage, construction and maintenance of parks, lawns etc. and removal of all unauthorized encroachments in the said area;

d) a writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus be passed directing the Respondent No.2 to grant all rights and amenities to the petitioner in respect of the common portions and common service shown in the plan annexed to the writ petition (Annexure P-3);

e) a writ, order of direction in the nature of mandamus be issued directing Respondent No.2 to take all steps for exercising its rights under the terms of the allotment and cancel the allotment of those residents of Asiad Village Complex who have not become members of the Petitioner Society;

f) a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus be passed directing the Respondent

Nos.1 and 2 to include Asiad Village Complex in the Notification dated 14.2.92 permitting conversion of lease hold lands and flats into free hold on the same terms and conditions as contained in the said Notification and at the rates of land prevailing as per Respondent No.1‟s published rates of the year 1987 and to grant a minimum time of one year for such conversion in respect of properties situated in Asiad Village Complex."

9. The petitioner arrayed Union of India through the Ministry of

Urban Development, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), Delhi

Development Authority (DDA) and Archaeological Survey of India

(ASI) as the four respondents. On the notice being issued of the

writ petition, MCD, DDA and ASI filed their responses.

10. MCD filed an affidavit in which it is stated that the role of

MCD in the entire matter is very limited. MCD is only looking

after roads, footpaths and storm water drains which were handed

over by DDA to it on January 28, 1993. It is averred that no

encroachment on roads or footpaths has been detected.

11. ASI also filed a short affidavit in which it denied that it has

failed in its duty to protect the archaeological remains of Siri Fort

and its surroundings.

12. DDA in its counter affidavit has stated that as regards

grievance of petitioner that DDA has failed to transfer the

common areas of the petitioner society, it is stated that the

brochure issued clearly mentioned that it was only for the

maintenance of the common services and common portions that

a registered agency (in this case the petitioner society) was to be

set up. The duties and responsibility of the agency were proper

maintenance, upkeep and keeping in good repair of the common

portion and common services of such property as have been

allotted to its constituent members. Thus in fact, there was a

duty cast upon the petitioner society for the purposes of

maintenance and under a right which had been given to them for

the ownership of the common areas as is being claimed by them.

The ownership of the common areas does not vest with the

society. If that were so, the same would have been mentioned in

the brochure. The allottees were to be the owners of only the

plinth area of the dwelling unit allotted to them and the

compound space in the same and not of the common areas. As

regards the alleged illegal alienation by DDA of the common

areas in the Asiad Village Complex, it is denied that there has

been any unlawful alienation by it of the common areas as is

alleged in the petition. The stand of the DDA is that the

petitioner society is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep

of only the residential areas of the Asiad Village Complex. The

built-up area of an individual unit and its compound space has

been left at the disposal of individual owners whereas the

common areas have been identified separately on the plan and

these and other areas which have been alienated are in no way

part of the housing complex. DDA has further replied that the

area developed around the Tower Restaurant, culture centre,

reception centre and restaurant is not a part of housing complex

and has been allocated separately in the plan prepared by the

Asiad Village Complex. The bifurcation of the total 135 acres of

the land in the complex is as under:-

"Area under the housing zone = 62 acres Area under zone for Central facilities like administrative block, reception centre, culture centre, asiad hospital and asiad tower = 26 acres

Area under practice and adjoining green = 42 acres Area of the green Buffer between the residential area and the Village Shahpur Jat = 5 acres

Total = 135 acres"

It is alleged that the areas which have been alienated are

such for which provision had already been made in the plan

prepared for the area in question. It is alleged that petitioner

society is incharge only of the maintenance of the common areas

and that too only for the housing zone and not the other areas in

the complex. It is alleged that the land which is being alienated

is clearly outside the area meant for the housing complex and

thus, it cannot, in any case, be termed as part of the common

areas for which the petitioner society is claiming ownership. DDA

has further stated in the affidavit that adequate facilities have

been provided for by it for the use and convenience of the

petitioner society and the other allottees of the dwelling units in

the Asiad Village Complex. It is stated that only a population of

3,800 persons with a density of 80 persons per acre has been

inhabited in the area.

13. During the pendency of this petition, DDA has leased out

the Tower Restaurant along with land appurtenant to the said

restaurant to one M/s Jhankar Banquets. As the process for

leasing out the Tower Restaurant was initiated by DDA and

advertisements appeared in the Newspapers, an application was

filed by the petitioner for restraining DDA from leasing out the

Tower Restaurant, which got dismissed on 21.07.1993. Another

application to the similar effect was disposed of subsequently.

M/s Jhankar Banquets was also made a respondent to the present

petition.

14. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed

an additional affidavit in which it is contended that the action of

DDA in permitting additional construction is in violation of the

notification dated 16.06.1992 of ASI.

15. Though the petitioner has made numerous prayers to this

Court, the counsel appearing for the petitioner society confined

his submissions in respect of the prayers relating to a direction to

DDA to transfer the common areas and common services

including Tower Restaurant to it.

16. During arguments, the counsel for the petitioner society

referred to allotment letters issued to the members of the

petitioner society which stipulate that the allotment of dwelling

units is subject to terms and conditions stipulated in the brochure

framed under DDA (Management and disposal of Housing

Estates) Regulations, 1968 as amended from time to time. The

counsel referred to various provisions of DDA (Management and

disposal of Housing Estates) Regulations, 1968. It is submitted

that a conjoint reading of those provisions would show that no

person other than petitioner society has a right of using and

maintenance of all areas in the complex. It is also argued that

the tower restaurant is nothing but an overhead water tank

which for aesthetic look has been camouflaged by a restaurant.

It is submitted that an overhead water tank is a water supply and

ancillary installation. Since the brochure as also the Regulations

of 1968 state that the water supply and ancillary installations is

part of the common services, the same should be under the

control of the petitioner society. It was further submitted that

the amount paid by the members of the petitioner society at the

time of allotment was in respect of the entire 135 acres of land

and was not limited to area earmarked as housing zone.

17. The counsel also contended that the Master Plan shows that

the open areas are meant for community use and to serve as an

open park and thus the same could not be put to commercial

use. It is also argued that in any view of the matter, occupation

by Jhankar Banquets of the green open area to the extent of

18,500 square metres is per se illegal.

18. The counsel for the DDA submitted to the contrary. She

drew the attention of the Court to various portions of the counter

affidavit in which it is stated that the entire complex comprises of

135 acres which has been bifurcated into various portions. As

per the case of DDA, land under the housing zone comprises of

62 acres and the remaining land to the extent of 73 acres is to be

used for various other purposes as per the planning made for

those portions. It is argued that the society has no right over the

land in issue as the same is not part of the housing zone. It is

pointed out that from the very beginning and even as per the

brochure, the presence of tower restaurant and other restaurants

in the complex is shown and thus it would not be correct to treat

the tower restaurant as a simple overhead water tank. She also

submitted that proper notings exist on file of DDA showing

leasing of the Tower Restaurant in favour of Jhankar Banquets. It

is submitted that when the advertisements for tendering of the

Tower Restaurant had been published, it had indicated that in

addition to the leasing of land under the Tower Restaurant, DDA

would allow use of 13491.16 square metres land in front of the

Tower Restaurant for various functions on annual licence fees. In

addition some space for parking was also licensed, thus making

the total area of land around 18,500 square metres. This was

stated in the application form for tender as well as in terms of the

tender. It is also stated that subsequently, a separate

conveyance and lease deed for the Tower Restaurant was

executed and site plan was attached thereto showing the extent

of area leased and licensed to Jhankar banquets.

19. The counsel for Jhankar Banquets also made submissions

similar to contentions raised by DDA.

20. At this stage, it would be desirable to deal with a

preliminary submission made by the counsel for DDA and Jhankar

Banquets. It may be noted that many of the issues raised in the

present petition were examined by a Division Bench of this court

in another case namely Vishwanath Pratap Singh v. Union of India

and others (Judgment dated 30.09.2009 in WP(C) No.3319 of

2002). This Court in that judgment inter-alia examined the

validity of action of DDA in giving the Tower Restaurant with land

appurtenant thereto to the extent of 4.47 acres on lease to

Jhankar Banquets. The Division Bench upheld the action of DDA

with the following observations:-

"23. First we take note of certain background facts regarding the construction of Asia Tower Restaurant. It is stated in the counter-affidavit of the DDA which remains substantially undisputed that since the Asiad Village was build to provide residential facilities to a large number of person, a source of water supply to the same was required. Accordingly, it was decided to build an overhead

water tank, which would be the source of water supply to the Asiad Village. Subsequently a view was taken that the over head water tank would be looking ugly and therefore, it would be better to camouflage it by a tower restaurant. Accordingly, it was proposed to build an overhead tank cum view tower-cum-restaurant. This proposal was accepted by the Project Board in its meetings held on 3.1.1981/19.1.1981. The proposal was also greatly appreciated by the Urban Arts Commission in its meeting held on 15.01.1981. Further, the affidavit states, the tower which subsequently came to be known as Tower Restaurant came to be build in 1982 at a cost of Rs. 72 lacs, on a plot of land which, under the then applicable 1962 Master Plan was earmarked for recreational use. In terms of the said Master Plan the land earmarked for recreational use could be used for the purposes such as outdoor cinema, restaurant etc. subject to permission from the competent authority i.e. DDA and that a bare perusal of the above said extract from the Master Plan shows that the use of the land for the restaurant as approved by the Project Board, which had been delegated full powers of the authority was in consonance with provisions of the Master Plan. Further it is stated that sometimes in the year 1984, the Tower Restaurant was allotted at a monthly licence fee of Rs.50,000/- or 5% of gross sales whichever was higher, for a period of five years, which was extendable by another five years. Possession was handed over to the licensee in 1984. The allotment was surrendered in July 1988 and the possession of the Tower Restaurant reverted to DDA.

24. Thereafter, tenders were floated for, disposing of the Tower Restaurant in October, 1989 and April, 1990 but the same could not materialise for one reason or the other. After that even efforts were made to offer this restaurant to Public Sector Tourism Corporations of various states but the response was lukewarm. In these circumstances, it was ultimately decided by the DDA vide Resolution dated 23.03.1993 to auction this restaurant on lease hold basis for a period of 30 years with the surrounding land which could be given on license fee basis. Tenders were invited in November, 1996 and pursuant thereto bid of M/s. Jhankar

Banquet which was for Rs. 2.20 crores (against the reserve price of Rs.1.88 crores) and annual license fee of Rs. 31 lacs per year to be enhanced at the rate of 20% every three years was accepted after taking approval of the Lt. Governor. Thereupon possession of the Tower Restaurant along with adjoining land was handed over to M/s. Jhankar Banquet in July, 1997.

25. From the aforesaid narration of facts, one thing is clear that the Tower Restaurant is in existence for more than 20 years and in any case it was constructed much before the 1992 notification. The land in question also belongs to DDA. Therefore, action of the DDA in giving the said Tower Restaurant to M/s Jhankar Banquet cannot be faulted with. However, any construction activity by the Jhankar Banquet which is contrary to 1992 notification cannot be permitted." (Emphasis added)

21. The Division Bench then proceeded to issue certain

directions to ensure that the residents are not inconvenienced

and the aesthetic and archeological importance of the area is not

diminished.

22. The counsel relying on the above judgment submitted that

in view of categorical finding in V.P. Singh‟s case (supra), it would

not now be open to the petitioner to contend that the lease or

license of Tower Restaurant in favour of Jhankar Banquets is

illegal or unjustified. On the other hand, the counsel for the

petitioner contended that the judgment of this court in V.P.

Singh‟s case would not bind the petitioner society as it was not a

party to that petition. Moreover, it was contended that the

judgment in that case would not affect the outcome of the

present case as the said writ petition was filed in the nature of

public interest litigation and thus arguments as are available to

the petitioner in this case did not arise for consideration in that

case. It is submitted that contentions raised in the present

petition arise out of personal rights, if any, of the petitioner

society, under the brochure and the relevant regulations having

the force of law and those contentions were not and could not

have been examined by the Division Bench in that case.

23. We have considered the submissions of the parties on this

aspect and we find force in the contentions of both sides. It is no

doubt true that the Division Bench in that case has held - "the

Tower Restaurant is in existence for more than 20 years and in

any case it was constructed much before the 1992 notification.

The land in question also belongs to DDA. Therefore, action of

the DDA in giving the said Tower Restaurant to M/s Jhankar

Banquet cannot be faulted with". To that extent it would not be

proper for us to re-examine the matter. However, the Division

Bench in that case did not examine the rights of the residents on

the land in issue, if any, and proceeded on the assumption that

DDA was the absolute owner of the land and Tower Restaurant.

On the other hand, the case of the petitioner society in this case

is based on its alleged right of exclusive user and maintenance

under the brochure, DDA (Management and disposal of Housing

Estates) Regulations, 1968 and the price paid by the members.

This aspect of the matter was not decided by this Court in that

case. The petitioner was not a party to that case. Thus, while we

do not intend to deal with the contention of the petitioner that

the user of land as a Restaurant is contrary to Master Plan or the

notification dated 16.6.1992 issued under rule 32 of Ancient

Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Rules, 1959,

we proceed to examine the contentions in this writ petition for

directions to DDA to hand over common area and common

services including Tower Restaurant to the petitioner society for

their maintenance.

24. But, having heard the counsel for the parties, we are unable

to accept the contention of the petitioner that it has exclusive or

any right of maintenance over the land which is not underneath

the dwelling units.

25. We were taken through the brochure by the counsel for the

various parties. In our opinion, there is no representation in the

brochure that the Tower Restaurant or the whole of the land in

the complex was to be owned by the members of the society as

their common services in exclusion to others. In fact, the

following excerpts from the brochure would indicate that the

Tower Restaurant was to act as the facility open to all and was

not to become the property of the allottees to the exclusion of

others:

"A self contained and exclusive colony ................. It has its own power sub-station, water reservoir, shopping areas, restaurant complex, police station, post and telegraph office and bank. Exclusive green patches, walkways and rose gardens make for a cheerful environment. A unique fountain plaza opposite the Tower Restaurant has been designed in the style of a Mughal fountain-yard."

"The Tower Restaurant - head and shoulders above the rest.

                   The Tower provides a panoramic view of
          Delhi by day and night.         Telescopes at the
          fibreglass   domed     viewing    gallery   provide

fascinating close-ups. It is an ideal and luxurious hideaway after the day‟s hard work is done. The Tower Restaurant has two floors of restaurants and a discotheque.

Besides this Tower, the Village includes a Restaurant Complex with three existing restaurants and one more to be opened shortly. In the Capital there is nothing quite like the unique blend of design, facilities and sophistication found here."

26. The above excerpts do not state that the facilities would

become the exclusive property of the residents of the area or

shall be under their maintenance. The facilities referred in the

brochures such as banks, post offices, police stations etc. could

not have been the common property of the residents of complex

to the exclusion of all others.

27. The stand of the petitioner society that the payment of

allotment money was for the whole of 135 acres of land in the

complex is not established. DDA in its counter-affidavit has

stated that the allottees were allotted the land beneath the

dwelling units and the petitioner society is only concerned with

the area to the extent of 62 acres comprising of housing zone

and not with the other portions of the complex to the extent of

73 acres for which separate planning and provisions have been

made. The Brochure itself shows that even at the time of the

offer for allotment, Tower Restaurant and three other restaurants

were in existence and one more was to be opened shortly. It

shall be difficult to accept the case of the petitioners that all

these facilities were only to cater to the residents of 853 dwelling

units in the complex or were to be managed by the petitioner

society. The averments relating to payment of a substantially

larger amount than that was paid for the other schemes are

vague and without supporting evidence. The brochure shows

that the dwelling units were allotted as well furnished units and

had other exciting features. It also shows that the units had

many other advantages which may not be available with other

schemes. These may also be the reasons for paying the higher

price, if any.

28. Finally, we come to the reliance on the provisions of DDA

(Management and Disposal of Housing Estates) Regulations,

1968. The relevant regulations which were referred to by the

petitioner are as follows:-

"2(9) "Common Portions" means those portions of the plot or premises which are in common use and includes the lands, gateway, enclosure, compound walls, parks, open ground, passages, corridors staircase, fitting, fixture, light, if any, any installation whether for water supply or drainage or lighting for any other purpose and all such facilities which are used or intended to be used in common."

"2(10) "Common Services" in relation to common portions means the services which are rendered for maintenance, running, keeping in good condition and control these common portions, use whereof shall be regulated by the Registered Agency concerned;"

"2(23) "Housing Estate" means a group of houses built by the Authority for dwelling purposes and may comprise all or any other following namely:

          (a)     dwelling units;
          (b)     land under and appurtenant to such dwelling
                  units;
          (c)     roads and paths, sewers, storm water drains,

water supply and ancillary installation, street lighting and other similar amenities;

(d) open spaces intended for recreation and ventilation;

(e) convenient shopping, school, community hall or other amenity for common use."

"2(26) "Property" means a plot of land, a dwelling unit, a flat or other structure whether grouped under the Authority or otherwise and includes common portions and common services;"

29. We are of the opinion that while interpreting the above

provisions, other provisions of the same Regulations are also

required to be looked into. Some of these provisions are as

follows:-

"16. Functions of Registered Agency - The Registered Agency shall be responsible at its own cost for carrying out current as well as special repairs to and maintenance of the common services to the satisfaction of the Authority and in accordance with the provisions of the relevant agreement:

provided that in the case of failure in the discharge of such responsibility on the part of the Registered Agency, the Authority may discharge it and the expenses thus incurred by the Authority (whose decision as to the amount of such expenses shall be binding on the Agency) shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue."

"20. Administration of common portion/service by the Registered Agency - The Registered Agency shall be responsible for the maintenance, up-keep, running control and regulation for use of common portions and common services of each block in a Housing Estate and it shall be the duty of such Agency to administer these common portions and common services in accordance with the provisions of the relevant agreement.

The allottee/hirer shall be liable to the Registered Agency, the charge for the purpose as decided by the Authority. In case of failure on the part of allottee/hirer to make such payment, the Authority shall have the power to recover such amount as arrears of land revenue."

"38. Formation and Functions of Registered Agency

- All persons who have been allotted a property in group of a housing estate as determined by Regulation no. 29 shall constitute themselves into a Registered Agency (hereinafter called Agency) under these regulations which shall include as its objects the following:

(i) To discharge such duties and responsibilities as are specified in these regulations and the agreements made thereunder for the proper maintenance, running, up-keep and keeping in good repair common portions and common services of such property as have been allotted to its constituent members.

(ii) To pay on behalf of the Agency and on behalf of each constituent member of such Agency all rates, taxes, charges and assessments, municipal or otherwise and other levies of whatsoever nature as provided in the regulations and agreements executed with the Authority.

(iii) To look after the interest of constituent members.

(iv) To execute with the Authority agreements, lease-deed or other documents as specified in these regulations."

"45. Responsibility of Registered Agency about Services - The Agency and each of its constituent members shall be responsible for ensuring that:

(a) no damage or deterioration to the property handed over in terms of the agreement under these regulations is caused;

(b) no installation or equipment connected with or provided as part of water supply, sewerage, storm water drainage, electricity or other service shall be tampered with;

(c) no construction within the property shall be made otherwise than with the prior sanction of the competent local authority;

(d) no obstruction to a person duly authorized shall be caused so as to create difficulties in the discharge of his duties in connection with the matters arising out of the management of property; and