Delhi High Court
Om Prakash Sharma vs Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement ... on 29 January, 2013
Author: V. K. Jain
$~1.
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 634/2012 and CM 16351/2012 (stay)
OM PRAKASH SHARMA ..... Appellant
Through: Ms. Beenashaw Soni, Adv.
Versus
DELHI URBAN SHELTER IMPROVEMENT BOARD ...
Respondent
Through: Mr. Jagat Rana, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
ORDER
% 29.01.2013
Late Sh. Hub Lal, the father of the appellant was a licensee of the
respondent in respect of premises No. 68/1, Mori Gate, Delhi. Vide letter
dated 12.07.1984, the respondent informed late Sh. Hub Lal that the
premises occupied by him had been declared to be dangerous and it could
fall at any time. He was asked to vacate the said property immediately. He
was also informed that if he wanted to obtain alternative allotment of
LPA 634/2012 page 1 of 7
residential/commercial/JJ plot, he should meet Tehsildar (Revenue and
Rehabilitation), with all original certificates etc. Sh. Hub Lal died on
02.01.1985. However, his name continued to exist in the record of the
respondent in respect of the aforesaid property. On 16.11.1988, Smt.
Chameli Devi w/o late Sh. Hub Lal (mother of the appellant) requested the
respondent either to get the premises in question fully repaired or to allot an
alternative plot to her. This was followed by reminders to the respondent
requesting that either the aforesaid property be got repaired or an alternative
allotment be made to her. On death of Smt. Chameli Devi, the
petitioner/appellant requested the respondent to get the aforesaid premises
repaired. The request made by the appellant/petitioner was followed by
various reminders to the respondent. Since no alternative accommodation
was allotted to the appellant/petitioner, he filed a writ petition seeking
directions for allotment of alternative flat/house to him. It was also alleged
in the writ petition that unauthorized construction had been raised in the
neighbouring property No. 1/67, as well as other adjacent properties. The
appellant also sought directions to the respondent to stop the said
unauthorized construction in the adjacent properties.
LPA 634/2012 page 2 of 7
2. During the pendency of the writ petition, a survey of the aforesaid
premises was conducted by the respondent on 03.10.2011 and it was
reported that the property in question had been declared dangerous as per the
notice dated 12.07.1984 and as per the policy guidelines the dangerous
katras were not to be repaired/structurally improved and were liable to be
cleared. It was further stated in the report that the wooden beams at the
support had started giving way and the support mechanism might fall at any
point of time. The estimated cost required for the repair in the portion of the
appellant was stated to be about 50,000/-. It was also reported that during the
said inspection one Ram Babu informed that Om Prakash was not living in
the premises in question for the last about 12 years.
3. The learned Single Judge, vide impugned order dated 13.01.2012
rejected the contention of the appellant with regard to the aforesaid property
being dangerous on the ground that he had continued to occupy the said
premises for almost three decades after issue of the notice dated 12.07.1984
and no untoward incident had happened during this period. It was also
observed by the learned Single Judge that the appellant/petitioner was a
defaulter who had not bothered to deposit a paltry license fee of Rs.6/- per
LPA 634/2012 page 3 of 7
month for a number of years. The learned Single Judge however, deemed it
appropriate to direct the respondent to renovate the said premises by
carrying out necessary repairs after giving reasonable time to the
petitioner/appellant to make alternative arrangement and vacate the said
premises. As regards the prayer made by the petitioner/appellant with
respect to unauthorized construction in the adjacent properties, it was
directed that the respondent would bring the said unauthorized construction
to the notice of the MCD for taking necessary steps for its removal as per
law.
4. This is not the case of the respondent that the property occupied by
the petitioner/appellant is not dangerous. The aforesaid property was
declared dangerous way back on 12.07.1984 and it was clearly stated in the
letter sent to late Sh. Hub Lal that being dangerous, the property could fall
down at any time. He was also warned that if he did not vacate the property
immediately, he would be liable in case of nay loss resulting from such an
incident taking place. This is not the case of the respondent that any repair to
the aforesaid premises was carried out by it after 12.07.1984. The mother of
the appellant as well as the appellant have been writing to the respondent to
LPA 634/2012 page 4 of 7
either get the aforesaid premises repaired or allot an alternative
accommodation to them. The respondent neither carried out repairs in the
aforesaid property nor did it allot any alternative accommodation to the
appellant. It is stated in the report dated 03.10.2011, prepared after carrying
out inspection of the premises in question on 01.10.2011 that the estimated
cost for repair of the portion occupied by the appellant would be to the tune
of Rs. 50,000/-. This clearly shows that the aforesaid premises is not in a
habitable condition and needs extensive repairs. Therefore, it cannot be
accepted that the aforesaid property is no more a dangerous property. In any
case, the notice dated 12.07.1984 declaring the said property to be
dangerous has not been withdrawn at any point of time and the policy of the
respondent as stated in the report dated 03.10.2011 is not to repair such
premises but to altogether clear/demolish them.
5. As noted earlier, way back on 12.07.1984 the respondent had asked
late Sh. Hub Lal to submit documents mentioned in the said communication
if he wanted allotment of an alternative accommodation in lieu of the
premises occupied by him. Thus, not only had the respondent declared the
LPA 634/2012 page 5 of 7
aforesaid premises to be dangerous, it was also willing to consider the
allotment of an alternative accommodation to the predecessor in interest of
the appellant. We see no good reason for the respondent not making an
alternative allotment to the appellant as per its policy, on account of the
premises occupied by him having been declared dangerous. As regards the
non-payment of license fee, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted
that without issue of demand notice, it is not permissible to deposit the
license fees and no demand notice was issued by the respondent. This
position was not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent.
6. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the
appellant is not residing in the premises in question. This information
according to the learned counsel was given to them by one Sh. Ram Babu at
the time of said inspection on 01.10.2011. The learned counsel for the
appellant, however, strongly refuted the averments and claimed that the
petitioner/appellant continues to reside in the premises in question. The
question as to whether the petitioner/appellant continues to reside in the
premises in question or not, is a question of fact which cannot be gone into
in these proceedings, and therefore, we refrain from taking any view on this
LPA 634/2012 page 6 of 7
submission of the learned counsel for the respondent.
7. For the reasons stated hereinabove we set aside the impugned order
dated 13.01.2012 and direct the respondent to consider the request of the
petitioner/appellant for allotment of an alternative accommodation in lieu of
the premises number 68/1, as per its policy. An appropriate decision in this
regard shall be taken and communicated to the petitioner/appellant within
three months.
CHIEF JUSTICE
V.K. JAIN, J
JANUARY 29, 2013/'raj'
LPA 634/2012 page 7 of 7
