Back
High Court Of Delhi
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COMMITTI - Appellant
Versus
INDIAN COFFEE WORKERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED - Respondent
Civil Writ 664 of 1990
Decided On : 05/13/2003
Cooperative Society - Licensee's Liability under Delhi Fire Prevention and Safety Act, 1986 - Sections 2, 6, 16, and Rule 8 - The judgment discusses the liability of the licensee under the Delhi Fire Prevention and Safety Act, 1986, and the corresponding rules. It interprets the definition of 'occupier' under Section 2, the notice provisions under Section 6, and the liability provisions under Section 16 and Rule 8. The court emphasizes that the liability for fire safety measures can be imposed on both the owner and the occupier, and the absence of a specific clause in the license deed does not absolve the occupier from such liability.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a cooperative society, operated a coffee house under a license granted by the respondent. The respondent demanded payment for fire safety measures under the Delhi Fire Prevention and Safety Act, 1986. The petitioner sought to quash the demand and restrain the respondents from demanding any amount contrary to the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, as an occupier, was liable for the fire safety measures under the Act, regardless of the absence of a specific clause in the license deed. The court held that the challenge to the demand was misplaced, and no direction could be issued to execute a fresh license deed without the proposed clause. The interim orders were vacated, and the petitioner was directed to pay the demanded amount with interest.
Issues: The issues involved the liability of the licensee/cooperative society for fire safety measures under the Delhi Fire Prevention and Safety Act, 1986, and the validity of the demand made by the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the liability for fire safety measures can be imposed on both the owner and the occupier, and the absence of a specific clause in the license deed does not absolve the occupier from such liability. The petitioner, as an occupier, was held liable for the demanded amount.
Final Decision: The challenge to the demand was dismissed, and no direction was issued to execute a fresh license deed without the proposed clause. The petitioner was directed to pay the demanded amount with interest, and each party was left to bear their own costs.
( 1 ) THE petitioner is a cooperative society registered under the Delhi Co-operative Societies Act, 1972 and has been running a coffee house on the second floor of Mohan Singh Palace Building, Baba Kharak Singh Marg, New Delhi in terms of a licence granted by the respondent No. 1 - NDMC. The original licence was for a period of 10 years from 01. 05. 1969 to 30. 04. 1979 and the same was extended twice by 5 years each in 1979 and 1984 and was to come to an end on 30. 04. 1989. A draft licence deed was sent by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner in case the petitioner was desirous of extending the period of licence. The said licence deed contained an additional clause 20-A apart from the earlier terms, which is as under:-
"20- A that the Licencee shall obtain information and shall make all arrangements and provisions for fire detection safety/fighting arrangements as may be prescribed by the Chief Fire Officer or any other code/standard practice or any other competent authority in this behalf with the prior approval of the Licensor within 30 days of the grant of licence or occupation whichever is earlier. "
( 2 ) THE petitioner sent the licence deed duly typed on non-judicial stamp paper along with an additional security amount vide letter dated 22. 08. 1989, but did not include the said clause 20-A.
( 3 ) THE respondent No. 1 sent a letter dated 28. 08. 1989 informing the petitioner that the nominated authority appointed under the Delhi Fire Prevention and Safety Act, 1986 ( hereinafter to be referred to as, `the said Act ) had served a notice under Section 4 (1) of the said Act read with Rule 7 (2) of the Delhi Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Rules, 1987 ( hereinafter to be referred to as, `the said Rules ) on respondent No. 1 for providing fire safety / fire preventive measures and the estimated cost for the same for the building in question was worked out to Rs. 29,37,091/ -. The petitioner was, thus, asked to pay a sum of Rs. 3,32,490/- being the proportionate share latest by 20. 10. 1989. The petitioner, however, did not pay the amount. Reminders were sent by respondent No. 1 dated 25. 10. 1989, 05. 12. 1989 and 24. 01. 1990, but to no avail.
( 4 ) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking quashing of the notice / demand dated 04. 10. 1989, for restraining the respondents from demanding any amount in contravention of the said Act and for a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to execute a fresh licence deed without inserting the proposed clause 20-A.
( 5 ) IN the present writ petition, which has been pending since 1990, stay of recovery of the impugned demand has been directed vide Order 20. 07. 1990, which interim orders were subsequently confirmed. It is stated at the bar that the necessary work has already been carried out by respondent No. 1 at its own cost since the demand was relating to the whole building.
( 6 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, it is necessary to consider the scheme and provisions of the said Act.
( 7 ) THE Statement of Objects and Reasons states that the existing provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 had been found to be inadequate for purposes of providing fire safety measures, particularly in multi-storeyed buildings and to compel owners of the buildings to carry out necessary measures for prevention of fire.
( 8 ) SECTION 2 of the said Act is the definition clause and " occupier" is defined in Section 2 (j), which is as under :-
"2 (J) " occupier" includes -
(I) any person who for the time being is paying or is liable to pay to the owner the rent or any portion of the rent of the land or building in respect of which such rent is paid or is payable;
(II) an owner in occupation of, or otherwise using his land or building;
(III) a rent- free tenant of any land or building;
(IV) any person who is liable to pay to the owner damages for the use and occupation of any land or building;"
1. SECTI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
