Manjeet Singh and Others vs Commissioner, MCD and Others

Hima Kohli, J.—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.

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.

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.

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 Unified Building Bye-laws - Section 6.4.1 , 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 Rs. 20,000/- on respondent No. 3 and further costs of Rs. 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.