( 1 ) AN interesting question of law as regards jurisdiction of the municipal Corporation of Delhi (in short "mcd"), the Delhi Development authority (in short "dda") and the New Delhi Municipal Council (in short "ndmc") to seal the premises in case of a misuser is the question involved in these matters.

( 2 ) HAVING regard to the fact that a short question of law arises for consideration in this matter it is not necessary to notice the fact of the matter.

( 3 ) WE may at the outset notice that a Division Bench of this court in Rohit Talwar and Ors. v. MCD reported in 49 (1993) DLT 466 held that the Municipal Authorities have no such power.

( 4 ). Mr. A. S. Chandhiok, learned Senior Counsel, appearing as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant would submit that the said decision has correctly laid down the law as therein all the relevant statutory provisions, viz. , the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (in short DMC Act ) and Delhi Development Act, 1957 (in short the dda acf) had been considered. Learned counsel submitted that the said judgment must be held to have been accepted by the respondents, inasmuch as, although extensive amendments have been brought about in the said Act no amendment had been carried out in Sections 343, 344 and 345a of the DMC Act. Interpretation of the relevant provisions of law, the learned counsel would contend, thus, must be held to have been accepted by the respondents and, thus, they should not be permitted to raise the said question once over again.

( 5 ) MR. Das learned counsel appearing on behalf of the MCD and Mr. Sunil Malhotra, learned counsel appearing for the Delhi development Act ( DDA Act) would, however, submit that the provisions of the DMC Act and DDA Act must be construed harmoniously so as to ascertain the real purport and object behind enacting Section 345a in the DMC Act which is in part material to Section 31a in the DDA Act. It was contended that the conversion of a residential house or building into a store, godown, whatsoever, which had not been originally constructed for such use, would amount to erection of the building which in turn would come within the purview of provisions as contained in Section 331 thereof. Having regard to the fact that Section 332 of the DMC Act puts an embargo on such activity, as a result whereof, the authorities under the said Act are entitled to take action in relation thereto and, thus, it must be held that by necessary implication they have the requisite power to seal the premises. Sealing of the premises, the learned counsel would contend, is necessary for carrying out the purport and object of the DMC Act. In the alternative, it was submitted that such misuse being accompanied by alteration/modification in the residential house, the same would amount to violation of Section 334 of the DMC Act, in relation whereto, even Commissioner cannot grant any sanction. In any event, contends the learned counsel, such misuser being not in conformity with the provisions of the DMC Act, the building bye-laws, master Plan and Zonal Plan, which would attract penal provisions in terms of Section 347 thereof, the authority must be held to have the requisite power to see that the same is prohibited, which in turn would confer on them a power of sealing the premises by necessary implication. Such change of user, according to the learned counsel, would attract the provisions of Section 347 of the DMC Act. If the Commissioner, in terms of the proviso appended to Section 343 or 344 of the DMC Act is empowered to direct stoppage of erection or execution of work, there is no reason as to why such a power under Section 345a of the DMC Act cannot be extended to a case of misuser also.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel would contend that the power to direct sealing of a building or premises conferred upon the Commissioner, in terms of Section 345a of the DMC Act would, thus, not only extend to the cases of unauthorized constructions but also to cases where the p