The judgment emphasizes the need for compliance with building regulations and rejects the plea based on the doctrine of desuetude.

( 1 ) THE scrounge of rampant unauthorized construction and misuser of residential properties for commercial usepermeates almost all over Delhi. This has resulted in an attitude of the builders and owners that despite breaking all rules and regulations for construction and user of the property, no action would be taken. The only answer of such people is that others are also doing the same thing. They have become law unto their own selves. This brazen violation of all norms necessary for the maintenance and planned development of Delhi must be put down with a firm hand and no indulgence is liable to be shown to such persons in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

( 2 ) THE present case is one such case where the order of the Appellate tribunal dated 23rd July 1987 has been in pugned.

( 3 ) THE property in question is bearing No. H-10 Rajouri Garden, New Delhi and building plan for construction of a esidential structure was sanctioned on 17th july 1986. Low behold a mini market was constructed instead of a residential building in violation of all norms with consequential deviations in construction. A show Cause Notice was issued under Section 345 (1) and 343 of the Delhi Municipal corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter called and REFERRED TO as "the said Act") on 1st december 1986 pointing out the unauthorized construction and finally a demolition order was passed on 21st May 1987. (The said demolition order is, however, referred to as a fresh demolition notice ). It is his demolition order which was impugned before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal by a detailed and reasoned order on 23rd July 1987 which has been impugned in the present writ petition.

( 4 ) THE factual matrix has been set out in detail in the impugned order. There is excess coverage in the basement ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor apart from the nature of construction being commercial and the mini market running in the said property. The petitioners herein alleged that the deviations could be regularized and that proper opportunity was not afforded to them before the order dated 21st May 1987 was passed,

( 5 ) THE appellate Tribunal has noticed that Show Cause Notices were issued in view of the deviations having been found during the progress of construction. Further, even earlier appeals were filed before the Tribunal in anticipation of alleged threat of demolition which were held not to be maintainable and another suit was filed in the civil court when the Show Cause Notice dated 3rd March 1987 was served on the petitioners. The petitioners admitted before the appellate Tribunal that the Show cause Notice was duly served on the petitioners on 3rd March 1987 which was replied to on 1st April 1987. The petitioners never filed any sanctioned building plan in spite of the directions of the Tribunal but only a proposed building plan was filed. It has been found that there was more than 50% coverage on the third floor whereas third floor was not proposed to be constructed according to the plan and this construction was wholly without sanction. The coverage on the basement, ground floor and first floor instead of 50% of the plot area is 100% and instead of a residential house, the whole building has been constructed for use for commercial purposes.

( 6 ) IT is thus apparent from the aforesaid recital of facts that the petitioners have violated all norms with impunity and there is gross excess coverage.

( 7 ) THE Appellate Tribunal also noticed that neither the excess coverage nor the change of use was compoundable under the bye-laws. The petitioners did not file a plan of the existing structure and in fact, did not appear for personal hearings despite letters being issued by the concerned authorities. None of the petitioners even appeared before the Tribunal and only the husband of petitioner No. 1 was present at the time of arguments. The Tribunal thus rightly