AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
340 paragraphs · 5,488 wordsPradeep Nandrajog, J.—All the above captioned petitions pertain to flats demised in perpetuity to the writ petitioners on the first and barsati
floors of buildings constructed by the Government of India, Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply, Department of Rehabilitation at Khan
Market.
For the sake of brevity, reference to the location of flats would be referred to as in Khan Market.
Khan Market Complex was developed by the Government of India. Double Storey complex was constructed. On the ground floor, shops were
carved out and on the upper floor, only residential flats were carved out.
Writ petition number, flat to which it pertains and relief prayed in each of the petition, may be noted :-
(A) WP(C) 5339/02 :
It pertains to flat No.28. Relief prayed is that notice dated 17.1.2002 be quashed. Said notice issued u/s 252 of NDMC Act,1994 alleges
commercial use of flat. It directs stoppage of commercial use under pain of payment of fine or imprisonment. Quashing of complaint dated
20.6.2002 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate for violation of Section 252 of the NDMC Act,1994 is also prayed for. Mandamus is sought
directing L&DO to allow the application of the petitioners for change of use from residential to commercial. Prohibition is sought against the
respondents from taking action for cancellation of the lease. Mandamus is sought against respondent No.1 NDMC to issue license for running a
bakery from the flat.
(B) WP(C) 3894/02 and 787/03 :
These petitions pertain to flat No.15. Relief prayed in WP(C) 3894/02 is to direct L&DO to allow the application of the petitioner for conversion
of use from residential to commercial. Quashing of notice dated 10.6.2002 alleging mis-use and unauthorized construction stated in the notice is
prayed for. Mandamus is sought against L&DO to execute a supplementary lease deed as was executed in respect of Flats No.9, 32 and 33
relating to change of use from residential to commercial.
In WP(C) 787/03, petitioner prays that NDMC be restrained from levying mis-use charges pertaining to electric connection granted to the flat.
Additionally it is prayed that load violation charges included in the bill be quashed.
(C) WP(C) 3449/02 :
It pertains to flat No.35. Relief prayed is to direct respondents to permit change of user from residential to commercial and to execute a
supplementary lease incorporating said change of use.
(D) WP(C) 5489/02 :
It pertains to flat No.34. Relief prayed is to allow the application of the petitioner for change of user from residential to commercial and to execute
a supplementary lease incorporating the aforesaid change.
(E) WP(C) 3629/02 and WP(C) 6649/02 :
It pertains to flat No.5. Relief prayed for is to direct the respondents to permit change of user from residential to commercial and execute a
supplementary conveyance deed incorporating said change of user. Prayer in WP(C) 6649/02 is that application for sanction of additional
electricity load for the flat be directed to be allowed by respondent No.1. Prohibition is sought against NDMC from levying mis-use and load
violation charges.
(F) WP(C) 815/03 :
It pertains to flat No.39. Relief prayed is to issue a mandamus to the respondents to execute supplementary lease incorporating change of use from
residential to commercial. Further prayer is against NDMC that it be directed to sanction electricity connection for commercial purpose.
Prohibition is sought against NDMC from recovering electricity charges by levying mis-use charges.
(G) WP(C) 786/03 :
It pertains to flat No.36. As amended, prayer made is to prohibit NDMC from levying mis-use and load violation charges on electricity connection
granted at the flat.
(H) WP(C) 7288/02 :
It pertains to flat No.8. Prayer made is Para-material to WP(C) 786/03. Additional prayer made is that NDMC be directed to sanction additional
load of 20 KVA for a commercial connection.
(I) WP(C) 6643/02 :
It pertains to flat No.73. As amended, prayer is Para-material to the one sought in WP(C) 786/03.
Identical lease deeds were executed on various dates by the Government of India demising in perpetuity first floor flats in Khan Market. Clause
4 of the covenant of the printed perpetual lease deed reads as under :
(4) The said allottee shall not use the said shop No.28 for any purpose other than the purpose of residence/business and the said allottee shall not
use the said staircase for any purpose other than the purpose of the staircase without previous consent in writing of the Government and shall not
do anything which shall cause annoyance or inconvenience to the owners and/or occupants of adjoining shop/flat together with the use in common
with the owner of the adjoining first floor shop/flat bearing No............ the staircase and a passage and the open space in front leading to the
staircase and also land under the staircase (shown hatched in plan colour on the plan annexed hereto.
For record it be noted that in all the perpetual lease deed, the word ''Business'' the second line has been scored of save and except the
perpetual lease deed pertaining to flat No.28. Counsel conceded that this was an unintentional omission.
On 22.3.1983, Government of India, Ministry of Works & Housing, L.& D.O. issued office order No.7/83. By and under said order, a
consolidated list of condonable breaches was circulated. The order reads as under :
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF WORKD AND HOUSING
LAND & DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI
No.24(3)/75-CDM Dated : 22.3.1983
OFFICE ORDER NO.7/83
Subject :- condensation of breaches
As various office orders have been issued on the subject mentioned above, it has, Therefore, been felt that a consolidation list of breaches to be
condoned to issue. A complete list of condonable breaches is, Therefore, circulated to all concerned for guidance and necessary action.
sd/-
(P.N.GUPTA)
Public Relations Officer
The list of condonable breaches circulated vide office order No.7/83, vide entry at Seriall No.39, listed as under :
Use of top floor of commercial premises for commercial purpose even if the plans for top floor were sanctioned for residential purpose.
Some petitioners sought to commence commercial activity from the flats in Khan Market. Some sought the requisite permission/license from
NDMC. Some commenced commercial activity without even seeking a permission/license.
Since flats were demised to be used for residential purposes, NDMC had granted electricity connections at each flat under category of
''Residential connection'' and was charging tariff as per notified rates applicable to residential connections.
Petitioner of WP(C) 5339/02 applied on 24.12.1985 for a license to manufacture, store and sell bakery products at the flat. He relied upon
office order No.7/83 and the fact that in his lease deed, the word ''business'' in clause 4 of the covenants was not scored of. Permission/license
was refused on the ground that flat, as per lease deed was to be used for residential purpose. Notwithstanding refusal, flat was but to non-
commercial use.
So did all other petitioners except writ petitioners of WP(C) 3449/02 and WP(C) 5489/02.
All petitioners, on various dates moved applications before L & D.O. For execution of supplementary lease deeds permitting commercial use
of the flats. L & D.O. declined.
Writ petitioner of WP(C) 5339/02 sought conversion of electricity connection from ""Residential'' category to ''Commercial''. It was allowed.
Evidence in Annexure P-7 (page 49) of WP(C) 5339/02. It is the bill for the period 4.2.2000 to 5.4.2000 in respect of flat No.28, Khan Market,
New Delhi for electricity consumed, as recorded by the meters installed. Connection is shown as ''Commercial''. Bill is based on commercial tariff.
Similarly connection granted to flat No.8 was sanctioned for commercial purposes.
The electricity department of NDMC had no hesitation to convert the existing connections from ''Residential'' to ''Commercial'' qua flat No.8
and 28 but its licencing department did not grant permission to convert use for a commercial purpose qua flat no.28. It be noted that perpetual
lease is the same.
Since NDMC threatened prosecution and save and except writ petitioner of WP(C) 5339/02, and others who did not misuse the flat in their
names, NDMC raised electricity bills charging misuse and load violation, and L&D.O. did not execute supplementary lease deed after changing
use to commercial, present petitions were filed, each praying as noted in para 4 above.
23 flat owners in Khan Market, on 18.3.2003 moved a joint representation to L&D.O. stating that flat No.32 and 33 were permitted
commercial use in 1974. Commercial use was permitted qua flat No.9 in the year 1999. It was stated that office order No.7/83 dated 22.3.1983
permitted commercial use of top floor of commercial premises to be used for commercial purpose notwithstanding that plans were sanctioned for
residential purposes. L&D.O. remained silent. Representation dated 18.3.2002 reads :
March 18th, 2002
The Land & Development Officer,
Ministry of Urban Development &
Poverty Alleviation,
Government of India,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi.
Sub: Flats in Khan Market, New Delhi
Joint Plea for Conversion of Lease
from Residential to Commercial
Sir,
It is most respectfully submitted as under :
That we are the owners (lessees on Record) of Flats situated in Khan Market, New Delhi.
That it has come to our knowledge that in the year 1974 two flats bearing No.32 and 33 in Khan Market, New Delhi were converted from
residential to commercial.
We have also confirmed from reliable sources that again in the year 1999, another flat bearing No.9 in Khan Market was converted into
commercial from residential. Subsequently a Supplementary Lease Deed was executed and duly registered in order to give effect to this
conversion.
Thus, we the undersigned would like to convert our flats into commercial as per the procedure laid down by your department, in similar manner
as followed in converting the aforesaid flats from residential to commercial. We are willing to pay reasonable and appropriate fees for this
conversion.
We request that our flats be converted from residential to commercial.
You are requested to let us know at an early date the procedure to be followed for conversion of our flats for commercial use as per the
precedents followed in the cases of flats bearing Nos.32, 33 and 9 in Khan Market, New Delhi.
Further, it may be mentioned that two other flats in Khan Market, one above Shop Arcade Nos. A, B, C, D and the other above Shop Arcade
Nos.E, F, G, H are also declared commercial and are presently being used for commercial purpose by LIC and IMRB.
It may also be mentioned that just adjacent to Khan Market, the commercial building called Lok Nayak Bhawan has been constructed, and it is
being used exclusively for commercial purposes.
Further in the year 1983 a notification was issued by the L&D.O., which clearly stated that there can be commercial use of the flats in Khan
Market. This office order No.7/83 dated 22.3.1983 issued by ministry of Works and Housing, Land & Development Office, Govt. Of India under
clause 39 clearly stated :-
Use of top floor of commercial premises for commercial purpose even if the plans for top floor were sanctioned for residential purpose is
permitted.
Further, this was confirmed in the year 1996 by Land & Development Office vide letter No.1&DO/LIV-9/48(S-21)/938 dated 4.10.1996
which clearly confirmed that the said notification is still in question.
Thanking you
L&D.O. did not sanction the permission for conversion of lease of the premises from residential to commercial.
Case of the petitioners who pray for conversion of user from residential to commercial and execution of a supplementary conveyance deed is :-
(a) Office order No.7/83 issued by the Government of India on 22.3.1983 (para 7 & 8 above) while listing condonable breaches mentions use of
top floor of commercial premises for commercial purposes even if plans were sanctioned for residential purpose as a condonable breach. It is
urged that if a stipulated user could be breached under sanction of law it hardly stood to reason not to permit conversion of user from residential to
commercial by an official document.
(b) Petitioners were being discriminated because flats No.9, 32 and 33 of Khan Market were converted from residential use to commercial use
and supplementary conveyance deeds were executed.
(c) Government of India order No.7/83 dated 22.3.1983 was being interpreted arbitrarily by the authorities. Flat No.34, Khan Market was
booked for mis-use as commercial activity was noticed. On representation received from the owner of the flat, mis-use was condoned by Chair
Person, NDMC with reference to Government of India order No.7/83 dated 22.3.1983.
(d) Respondents were interpreting the Zonal Development Plan in which Khan Market fell some times as allowing them to treat the whole area as
commercial and when it came to the petitioners, it was being told to them that user of the flat cannot be changed. It was pointed out by the
petitioners during arguments that when the only park in Khan Market was converted into a parking lot, petitioners questioned the same. Response
received was that the park has been converted into parking lot as part of the work of re-development of Khan Market and Prithvi Raj market on
the persistent request and demand of Khan Market Traders Association.
(e) Arbitrariness was further to be found when owner of flat No.36 sought conversion of the flat from lease hold to free hold under the policy of L
& D.O. whereunder lease hold properties could be converted into free hold. On 17.1.1995, this was refused on the ground that the flat is situated
over shops and flats was in a commercial zone as per Master Plan, Therefore, conversion cannot be granted.
(f) Petitioners of WP(C) No.5339/2002 and WP(C) No.7288/2002 were granted non-domestic connection for their flat No.8 and 28
respectively but when it came to license to use premises No.28 for bakery products, it was denied on sole ground that user of flat was residential.
(g) At residential premises being 55 Jor Bagh a bakery license was issued by name of Chocolate Wheel.
defense of the respondents makes a very interesting reading. Conversion of user from residential to commercial for flat No.9, 32 and 33 has
been explained as under :
That in reply to para 21, it is submitted that so far as the permission granted by the competent authority for change of user in respect of Flat
No.9, 32 and 33 is concerned, the facts in that regard are these:-
(a) An advertisement ''Government Auction-Shops & Flats in Khan Market, New Delhi will be sold at site by Public Auction for and on behalf of
the President of India on Sunday 15th January, 1956 at 10 am'' was issued. Initially Flat No.32 & 33 were auctioned to Raja Gyan Nath and a
lease deed in his name was executed on 11.08.1972 for residential use. In April, 1974, lessee represented to the respondent No.2, for the
conversion of the flats into commercial use on the basis of the public notice. The Department of Rehabilitation was looking after the Khan market
area at that time and they after an enquiry found out that as per the auction notice these flats were advertised as ''most suitable for Hotel or
Departmental Store'' and to this effect the Settlement Commissioner (P) wrote a letter to the respondent No.2 herein, vide its letter
No.SW/MOGBP/Flat No.32 and 33 Khan Market/885 dated 12.11.1974, wherein the clause 1 (vi) of the principal lease deed was amended to
''business and not for residence.''
The copy of the above mentioned auction advertisement is annexed to this reply as Annexure R2. The copy of the above mentioned representation
of the lessee of the Flats No.32 & 33 is annexed to this reply as Annexure R3. The copy of the above mentioned letter of the Settlement
Commissioner is annexed to this reply as Annexure R4. The copy of the supplementary lease deed dated 13.12.1974 is annexed to this reply as
Annexure R5.
(b) A representation dated 31.05.2000 was sent by the lessee of Flat No.9 to the respondent No.2 for the conversion of the use of the flat from
residential to commercial. The respondent No.2 vide its letter No.1&DO/PSIV/84/2001 dated 05.02.2001 informed the above lessee, the
decision to allow the conversion of the use of the said flat from residential to commercial subject to the payment of various charges. Another letter
No. L&DO/PSIV/156 dated 26.02.2001 was sent by the respondent No.2 to the lessee of the flat No.9 reiterating the earlier decision on
conversion and also informing him the decision to amend the clause 1(vi) of the principal lease deed by executing the Supplementary lease deed on
the payment of charges. To this effect a supplementary lease deed was executed whereby clause 1(vi) of the principal lease deed was amended.
(c) As regards the permission to the lessee of Flat No.32 & 33 for the use of the flats from residential to commercial is concerned, it is important
to mention that the Government Auction Notice (Annexure R2) mentioned that ''Flats No.32 & 33 over the shops (entrance from the back side)
having area approximately 3500 sq.ft. most suitable for hotel and departmental store.'' This was bought by the lessee for commercial purpose and
thereby he paid much higher price. However, in the principal lease deed the use of the flats was mentioned as residential. When the lessee made
representation (Annexure R3) for permitting commercial use, an enquiry was made by the Settlement Commissioner (P) who confirmed the above
mentioned facts (Annexure R4). In light of this, conversion of the use of Flats No.32 & 33 from residential to commercial was allowed and
supplementary lease deed was executed on 13.12.1974 to that effect (Annexure R5).
(d) That it is incorrect to say that the petitioners are similarly circumstanced as the owner of Flats Nos. 32, 33 & 9. In respect of Flat No.9, the
lessee of the said flat made a representation to the respondent No.2 for conversion of the use of the flat from residential to commercial stating that
flat No.32 & 33 are corner flats which had been converted from residential to commercial use and since Flat No.9 is also a corner flat its
conversion to commercial use should also be allowed (Annexure R6). In view of the fact that Flat No.9 is the mirror image of flat Nos. 32 & 33 in
the other corner of the same building and to maintain the architectural symmetry the said conversion was allowed by the respondent No.2 and a
supplementary deed was executed to that effect. A sketch showing the architectural location of Flat Nos.32, 33 & 9 vis-a-vis Flat Nos. 35 & 36
in the Khan Market is annexed to this reply as Annexure R7.
On the other issues, defense is that the flats were meant for residential purpose and were so specified. They cannot be converted to a
commercial purpose.
On the question of electricity charges, stand of NDMC which is supplying electricity to the flats is that connections were obtained for
residential purpose. Load was sanctioned. As per tariff applicable if connection was used for a purpose other than the purpose for which it was
sanctioned, mis-use was chargeable. For load violation, it was stated that if connected load was beyond the sanctioned limits, load violation
charges were livable as per tariff. Justifying non-grant of additional load to some of the petitioners who had applied for additional load, it is stated
that for operating commercial appliances additional load to a domestic connection could not have been sanctioned.
Before dealing with the submissions and the issues raised, two letters require to be noted. As noted above, owner of flat No.36, sought
conversion from lease hold to free hold under the policy of L & D.O. Application was rejected letter dated 13.1.1995. Same reads as under :
Kausar Properties Pvt.Ltd.,
Flat No.36, Khan Market,
New Delhi-110003.
Sub: Conversion from lease hold to freehold in respect of property flat no.36,K Khan Market, New Delhi.
Sir,
I am to refer to your application dt. 24.3.93 on the above cited subject and to inform you that the flat in question is situated over shops and thus
falls in commercial zone as per Master Plan and as such conversion cannot be granted to you.
Action to refund the conversion amount is being taken separately.
Yours faithfully,
sd/-
(A.C.SAHRAWAT)
DY.LAND & DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
As noted above, owner of flat No.34, Khan Market, who was booked for mis-use as flat was being used for commercial purpose, was later
on let of. Reasons are contained in NDMC''s letter dated 25.4.2003. Reasons are that as per Government of India order No.7/83 dated
22.3.1983, commercial use was permissible. Letter dated 25.4.2003 reads as under :
Sh.V.Sreekumar,
Public Relation Officer,
M/o Urban Development & Poverty Alleviation,
Land & Development Office,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi.
Sub: Conversion from residential to commercial-request of lessee of Flat No.35, Khan Market, New Delhi.
Sir,
Please refer to your letter No.1&DO/PS-IV/Flat 35, Khan Market/392 dated 17.4.2003 regarding representation received from Smt.Saroj
Tandon, Lessee of flat No.35, Khan Market, for conversion of the leased premises from residential to commercial. The required comments are as
under :-
Relates to L&DO.
Relates to L&DO
Relates to L&DO
The residential premises on 1st floor, flatNo.34, Khan Market, New Delhi booked for mis-use for commercial purposes under the NDMC Act.
Subsequently on representation received from the party, the mis-use was condoned by the then Chairperson, NDMC with reference to L&DO''s
order No.7/83 dated 22.3.83.
The ground floor shops are allowed to be used for commercial purposes, as such we have no comments to make.
It is a matter of record.
The reply dated 4.2.03 by Director (PR), NDMC with reference to ID No.15 needs no further comments because it is self explanatory.
As far as the placement of flat No.32, 33, 9 & 8, Khan market on the architectural sketch of the area is concerned, L&DO may be asked to
provide us the overall lay out plan and building plan in respect of these properties to enable us to prepare the architectural sketch. However, it is
advised that this work may be got done by L&DO by its own staff who are fully aware of the situation.
Sd/-
(TRIBHUWAN SINGH)
CHIEF ARCHITECT
Instant cases reflect how government departments and its officers work. To suit their whims and fancies an office order is sometimes
interpreted one way and the next day its opposite. Of course, if a wrong is committed as a result of misinterpretation of a policy, rule or statute, the
court would not compel the authority to commit another wrong, but where two views are possible and the government interprets its policy as
contained in an office order in a particular manner, to the benefit of one, the government cannot make a U Turn for the second.
Perpetual lease prohibits non-residential use of the flats. Lesser is the Government of India. No law prohibits the Lesser to waive a negative
covenant in a lease. Government of India''s Office Order dated 22.3.1983 condones some breaches. Use of top floor of commercial premises for
commercial purpose even if plans for top floor were sanctioned for residential purpose has been condoned. N.D.M.C. acted under this office
order qua flat No.34 when it condoned non residential use of said flat. Letter dated 25.4.2003 (para 24) records that the residential premises at
1st floor flat No.34, Khan Market, New Delhi booked for misuse for commercial purpose under the NDMC Act, on representation received from
the party resulted in misuse being condoned by the Chairperson NDMC with reference to L&DO''s Order No.7/83 dated 22.3.1983. NDMC
cannot read and interpret office Order No.7/83 differently for the petitioners. Further, NDMC, strangely enough granted a commercial connection
to flat No.8 and 28, notwithstanding that lease stipulated residential use. But for this very flat No.28, trade license for bakery was refused on the
ground that user was residential. Further, trade license for similar trade of bakery was granted at 55 Jor Bagh, a purely residential area.
Justification given in the counter affidavit that each case has its own facts is no justification in the eyes of law. True, each case has its own facts. But
where issue is generic and not specific, it is no defense to plead that each case has its own facts. Issue was, whether a trade license can be granted
for running trade of bakery at a residential premises. It is obvious that NDMC has been acting in a most arbitrary fashion. Further, if for flat No.8
and 28 a commercial connection was granted, why not to others. All flats in Khan Market have identical leases. Their geographical location is the
same. They are all in one zone.
Khan Market falls in a commercial zone. This was the reason that L&DO refused conversion from lease-hold to free hold when owner of flat
No.36 sought the requisite permission. (Refer para 23). It is not in dispute that L&DO''s policy of conversion permits conversion of leasehold
residential premises to free hold as per conversion policy. This was refused vide letter dated 13.1.1995. Refusal was based on the ground that
Khan Market falls in commercial zone as per Master Plan. L&DO read supremacy of the Master Plan over its conversion policy. No quarrel, but
then take it to its logical conclusion, permit non-residential use of the flats.
The only park has been converted into parking area as Khan Market Complex was treated as a commercial zone.
Coming to flat No.9, 32 and 33 in Khan Market, it was not disputed that L&DO had converted their user from residential to commercial. This
was justified on the ground that when flat No.32 and 33 were auctioned, the auction notice stated that flats were ''most suitable for Hotel or
Departmental Store.'' Notwithstanding that perpetual lease was for residential use of the flats, because of the contents of the public notice, user
was converted.
L&DO forgets that term of an auction and puffing up are totally different concepts. If stand of L&DO is to be accepted, sellers could puff up
their claims that a 1000 storeyed building can be constructed. Would the buyer be given the right to do so?
User is determined by the Zonal Plan and the Master Plan. Residential areas around Connaught Place, as per Zonal Plans came to be shown
as commercial and today we have a spectacle of high rise buildings, all commercial. Original leases were for residential use. Khan Market is
entitled to similar benefit. Change of use of flats No.9, 32 and 33, Khan Market can be justified on above premise and none else.
Another interesting facet. Change of use of flat No.9 has been justified ''to maintain the architectural symmetry''. Architecture relates itself to
the design and construction of a building. Of course, its use would influence its design and construction, but this would be at the inception stage. All
flats were architecturally designed at the initial stage for a uniform use. I could understand where the issue relates to exterior facia of a composite
group of buildings, for aesthetic beauty one can justify similarity in external looks of a building, but no more. A public authority is bound by law and
reasonableness of action.
Claim of such petitions who pray for conversion from residential use to commercial has to be allowed, (i) Office Order No.7/83, (ii) Zonal
Plan of Khan Market, (iii) Conversion qua flats No.9, 32 and 33, (iv) Reason for refusal to convert flat No: 36 to free-hold as per L&DO''s letter
dated 13.1.1995, (v) NDMC''s letter dated 25.4.2003 withdrawing action for misuse qua flat No.34 based on office order No.7/83 and (vi)
Treating the area as commercial changing use of park for parking all, individually and in conjunction lead to but one conclusion, commercial use
cannot be denied.
The electricity issue. Prosecution for misuse issue and bills levying mis-use and load violation charges are questioned.
Such of the petitions in Khan Market who were prosecuted must be entitled to same benefit as owner of flat No.34, in terms of NDMC''s
letter dated 25.4.2003.
If NDMC was withdrawing prosecution for misuse for flat No.34 on the ground that L&DO''s office order No.7/83 permitted commercial use
of the said flat and if flat No.8 and 28 were given a commercial connection, there was no reason to deny similar connection to all those who had
applied for enhancement of load and conversion of category.
Relief which ensure to the petitioners may now be noted:
i) WP(C) 5339/2002 :
Notice dated 17.1.2002 and criminal complaint before the Municipal Magistrate/Metropolitan Magistrate for violation of Section 252 of NDMC
Act,1994 are quashed. Mandamus is issued to L&D.O. directing it to permit commercial use of flat No.28, Khan Market and execute a
supplementary conveyance deed on the petitioner completing requisite formalities. Petitioners claim for bakery license be considered afresh treating
non-residential use of flat as permissible
ii) WP(C) 3894/2002 :
Notice dated 10.6.2002 is quashed in so far as it alleges misuses by the petitioner of flat No.15, Khan Market. It would, however, be permissible
for L&D.O. to proceed for unauthorised construction alleged. Mandamus is issued to L&D.O. directing it to permit commercial use of flat No.28,
Khan Market and execute a supplementary conveyance deed on the petitioner completing requisite formalities.
iii) WP(C) 787/2002 :
No material has been placed on record that the petitioner had applied for change of category of electricity load sanctioned from residential to non-
residential purpose. Bills raised are as per tariff. Writ petition is dismissed.
iv) WP(C) 3449/2002 :
Mandamus is issued to L&D.O. Directing it to permit commercial use of flat No.35, Khan Market and execute a supplementary conveyance deed
on the petitioner completing requisite formalities.
v) WP(C) 5489/2002 :
Mandamus is issued to L&D.O. Directing it to permit commercial use of flat No.34, Khan Market and execute a supplementary conveyance deed
on the petitioner completing requisite formalities.
vi) WP(C) 3629/2002 :
Mandamus is issued to L&D.O. Directing it to permit commercial use of flat No.5, Khan Market and execute a supplementary conveyance deed
on the petitioner completing requisite formalities.
vii) WP(C) 6649/2002 :
Petitioner had applied in November,2000 for extra load and change of category from residential to commercial. Mandamus is issued to NDMC to
allow change of category to non-domestic w.e.f. date of application received. Further mandamus is issued to enhance the load as prayed for. Bills
raised levying mis-use and load violation after December,2000 are quashed. Petitioner would be entitled to necessary adjustment as a
consequence of the direction aforenoted.
viii) WP(C) 815/2002 :
Mandamus is issued to L&D.O. directing it to permit commercial use of flat No.39, Khan Market and execute a supplementary conveyance deed
on the petitioner completing requisite formalities. Petitioner has not placed on record any letter evidencing that she applied for conversion of
electricity connection from domestic to non-domestic or for enhancement of load. She would not be entitled to any relief against NDMC pertaining
to electricity bills raised.
ix) WP(C) 786/2002 :
Petitioner has not placed any material to show that it applied for conversion of electricity connection from residential to non-residential or for
enhancement of load. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
x) WP(C) 7288/2002 :
Petitioner made an application on 21.9.1988 for enhancement of load. Connection granted was for commercial purposes. Denial by NDMC to
enhance the load on the ground that flat could not be put to commercial use is quashed. Mandamus is issued to NDMC to sanction the enhanced
load w.e.f. the date application was filed. Petitioner would be entitled to the adjustment of excess payment made, post October,1998.
xi) WP(C) 6643/2002 :
Petitioner applied on 15.2.2000 for conversion of load from domestic to non-domestic category and enhancement of load. Mandamus is issued to
NDMC to convert the connection from domestic to non-domestic and enhance the load w.e.f. March,2000. Petitioner would be entitled to the
benefit of adjustment of excess payment.
No costs.
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
October, 2004
WP(C) 939/2003
Present petition was tagged with a batch of petitions claiming similar relief pertaining to Khan Market. Though relief is common, but flats in Khan
Market had their own peculiar characteristics, in that, L&D.O. had converted 3 flats from residential to commercial. Plea of discrimination was
raised. Further material was brought on record that Khan Market fell in an area declared as commercial by the latest Master Plan and Zonal
Development Plan. Further material was placed that under the lease hold to free hold policy, flats in Khan Market were not being converted into
free hold on the ground that area was commercial. Present petition requires to be heard on its facts. When matter was reserved for judgment,
counsel had indicated that present petition though pertaining to flats in Jor Bagh Market is identical to others. It is not so.