The central legal point established in the judgment is that the decision of the appeal was essential to determine the status of unauthorized construction and its impact on building plans, and the appellant was entitled to seek revival of the appeal despite the extension of the NCT of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2011.

Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.:--

1. This intra court appeal impugns the order dated 28th July, 2014 of the learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of W.P.(C) No. 4712/2014 preferred by the appellant.

2. Notice of the appeal was issued. We have heard the counsel for the appellant and the counsels for the respondents No. 1 & 2.

3. The respondent No. 1 is a tenant under the appellant in a portion of property No. 2, Underhill Road, Civil Lines, Delhi. On complaints of the appellant, the respondent No. 2 North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) booked the respondent No. 1 for unauthorized construction in the portion of the property in its tenancy and passed an order of demolition of the said unauthorized construction. The respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (ATMCD); when the said appeal came up for hearing on 11th January, 2012, the respondent No. 1, referring to the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2011 sought adjournment sine die of the hearing of the appeal and which was agreed to by the counsel for the appellant. Accordingly, the ATMCD vide order dated 11th January, 2012 adjourned the hearing of the appeal sine die with liberty to the parties to have the same revived as and when required.

4. The appellant filed an application for revival of the appeal contending that it was wanting to rebuild the property and the plans whereof were not being sanctioned owing to the unauthorized construction subject matter of the appeal before the ATMCD and further contending that the provisions of the NCT of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2011 were not applicable to the subject unauthorized construction.

5. The Appellate Tribunal, MCD vide order dated 18th February, 2014 dismissed the said application of the appellant holding that the provisions of the NCT of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2011 were applicable to the subject unauthorized construction and also that the appellant having on an earlier occasion agreed to the hearing of the appeal being adjourned sine die could not, while the NCT of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act, 2011 was still in force, seek revival thereof.

6. Aggrieved therefrom, the writ petition from which this appeal arises was filed. However the learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, dismissed the writ petition in limine, agreeing with the reasons given by the ATMCD.

7. The counsel for the appellant before us argued that at this stage, the question whether the unauthorised construction subject matter of the proceedings before the ATMCD is protected by the NCT of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Act or not need not even be addressed. It was argued that the said question would arise only if the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 1 is dismissed. It was contended that the said law is not a bar to the ATMCD determining the validity of the order of the respondent No. 2 NDMC, of the construction being unauthorized and being liable to be demolished. It was contended that the said question be allowed to be determined and the said decision be not kept in abeyance.

8. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent No. 1 argued that if the construction was protected under the said law and could not be demolished, there is no purpose in pursuing the appeal or inviting a decision thereon. It was further argued that the appellant, on an earlier occasion having agreed before the ATMCD for adjournment of the proceeding sine die, cannot, without any change in circumstances, be permitted to change its mind.

9. We have considered the rival contentions.

10. We enquired from the counsel for the respondent No. 1 that whether owing to the aforesaid law, the very functioning of the ATMCD can be brought to a standstill. If it were to be said that all unauthorized constructions in the city are protected by virtue of the said law which has been extended from time to time and owing thereto all the proceedings before the ATMCD are to