Delhi High Court
Om Prakash Sharma vs Mcd & Ors. on 10 April, 2012
Author: Hima Kohli
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Review Petition No.215/2012 in W.P.(C) 3148/2011
Date of Decision: 10th April, 2012
IN THE MATTER OF:
OM PRAKASH SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Beenashaw Soni, Adv.
versus
MCD & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
: HIMA KOHLI, J(Oral)
1. This review petition is filed by the petitioner praying inter alia
for review of order dated 13.01.2012 by which the present petition
was disposed of while turning down the claim of the petitioner to
allotment of an alternate accommodation and directing the
respondent/DUSIB to undertake repair/renovation of the premises
occupied by the petitioner within a period of four months from the
date the possession thereof is handed over by the petitioner.
2. Counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid order may
be reviewed for the reason that while filing the additional affidavit,
the respondent/DUSIB had not taken into consideration the
previous records which contained a report of an Engineer pertaining
to the structural strength of the subject property. She states that
the basis of making this submission is the averments made in para-
4 of the additional affidavit filed by the Deputy Director, DUSIB
wherein it was noted that the portion of the premises under
occupation of the father of the petitioner had been declared
dangerous in the year 1984 by the then LRO(S) but the relevant file
was not traceable.
3. The second ground for seeking review of the order dated
13.01.2012 is that at the time of passing the aforesaid order what
weighed with the Court that the petitioner had not bothered to
deposit the license fee of `6/- p.m. for the past number of years
whereas as per the prescribed procedure, the petitioner cannot
deposit the license fee till a demand is raised on him. In support of
the aforesaid submission, learned counsel relies on para-6 of the
additional affidavit filed on behalf of respondent/DUSIB wherein it is
averred that the petitioner had not deposited any license fee in
respect of the portion of the premises occupied by him as there was
no demand.
4. It may be noted that non-payment of license fee by the
petitioner was not the sole ground for non-suiting him. Rather, it
was just one of the considerations as is apparent from a perusal of
the order dated 13.01.2012, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for
entitlement to an alternate accommodation. As regards the
inspection report mentioned in para-4 of the additional affidavit filed
by the respondent/DUSIB, it is pertinent to note that in the very
same additional affidavit, it had been stated that a fresh inspection
of the subject premises had been undertaken by the Department as
recently as on 29.10.2011 to ascertain the actual ground position of
the property and after the inspection, the respondent/DUSIB had
arrived at a conclusion that the portion of the property under the
occupation of the petitioner could be repaired within a period of six
months by incurring an expenditure of about `50,000/- for making
it habitable without further hindrances.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the
respondent/DUSIB, the Court was not inclined to direct the
respondent/DUSIB to give an alternate accommodation to the
petitioner. Instead, it was deemed appropriate to direct DUSIB to
ensure that the structural strength of the subject premises is
reinforced and necessary repairs are undertaken in a time bound
manner to make it habitable. When the property under the
occupation could be made habitable by respondent/DUSIB, the
petitioner cannot claim an alternate accommodation as a vested
right.
6. In view of the aforesaid facts, the present review petition is
found to be devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.
(HIMA KOHLI)
Judge
APRIL 10, 2012
'anb'/mk
