The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper applications and sanctions for non-residential use under MPD-2021, and the limitations on multiple non-residential activities in a single dwelling unit.

PRATIBHA RANI, J:

1. The appellant, A.R.Banerjee has impugned the order dated 16.07.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.14090/2009 whereby six months?time was

granted to the appellant to obtain requisite permission for using a part of the ground floor for banking purposes and the basement for a coaching centre; needless to state the permission had to be from the competent authority, which as we were given to understand is the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. As per the order, on appellant?s failure to do the needful, the Competent Authority was given liberty to take appropriate action as per law.

2. The directions have been issued on a writ petition filed by the respondent who owns the second floor of the building in question.

3. Relating back to the year 2001, we note that the appellant the allottee of plot No.A-100, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi, ad-measuring 320 sq.yd., entered into a collaboration agreement with respondent No.1 Sh.R.S.Verma, to develop said property. As per the collaboration agreement, the building had to be constructed by Sh.R.S.Verma from out of his own funds and the basement and ground floor thereof were to be the property of the appellant, the second floor was the property of respondent No.1 and the first floor was to be sold and was sold after the property was constructed.

4. Chittranjan Park is a re-settlement colony and as per MPD-2021 is to be treated as a re-settlement colony. The plots allotted to the allottees, as per perpetual sub-lease deed executed requires a building to be constructed on the plot allotted and used for a residential purpose. The appellant is also under said obligation to do so.

5. There is a dispute between the parties i.e. the appellant and respondent No.1 on the subject to excess construction, beyond the sanction obtained and admittedly, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has yet to compound the excess construction and there is not even finality on the subject: Whether the entire unauthorized construction is compoundable or not?

6. The appellant leased out the basement permitting the same to be used by the tenant as a coaching centre i.e. respondent No.6 and the ground floor to Indian Bank, respondent No.5.

7. Admittedly, no prior sanction has been obtained from the Competent Authority i.e. the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for the same.

8. The first respondent filed a writ petition seeking mandamus against the statutory authorities to compel them to prevent commercial activities being carried out as afore noted.

9. Inter-alia, it was informed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi that there is excess built up construction in the entire house and till the same is got regularized, the property cannot even be occupied. With respect to commercial activities permissible on residential plots, it was admitted that under MPD-2021, under the Mixed Land Use Policy notified under MPD-2021 the same was contingent upon obtaining a permission from the authorities concerned and that no such permission was obtained from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

10. The learned Single Judge, after considering the status report and that commercial activities were being carried on without required permission, observed in the impugned order as under:-

“7. Unless the respondents no.4 & 5 satisfy all the conditions subject to which such activities are permitted, they cannot said to be entitled to carry on the aforesaid activities.

8. However since the said activities are already going on for sometime now and there does not appear to have been any application of mind as to whether respondents no.4 & 5 satisfy all conditions subject to which such activity is permissible, rather than giving directions for stoppage of such activities, it is deemed expedient to give an opportunity to respondents no.4 & 5 to represent to the authorities that they do satisfy the requisite condition. A time of six months is deemed appropriate in this regard.

9. The counsel for the respondents no.4 &