Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 991
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G. ROHINI & SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, JJ.
NISHA SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
ANIL KUMAR GUPTA & OTHERS – Respondents
LPA No. 387 of 2016 & CM No. 23552 of 2016 (stay)
Decided On : 24-03-2017
For the Appellants : Mr. Deepak Anand with Mr. Devesh Tripathi and Mr. Unnati Mishra.
For the Respondents: Mr. D.K. Rustagi with Mr. Mayank Rustagi, Mr. Manish Kumar Srivastava, Mr. Gaurang Kanth, Ms. Biji Rajesh, Mr. Rahul Singhal, Mr. Sunil Goel, Mr. Tanuj Agrawal and Mr. Supreet Bimbra.
Compliance with fire safety measures and the need for supervision in the construction of the underground water tank.
Headnote:
Construction - Property Dispute - Contempt of Court - W.P. (C) No. 2095/2016 - Cont. Cas (C) No. 690/2010 - Delhi Fire Service Act, 2007 - Section 3, Section 4 - The court discussed the dispute between the landlord and tenants regarding the construction of an underground water tank in a property, emphasizing the need for compliance with fire safety measures. The court directed the construction to be carried out under the supervision of Dr. Maqsood E. Nazar as agreed in previous proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 2095/2016, involving a property dispute between the landlord and tenants regarding the construction of an underground water tank.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the construction of the water tank should be carried out under the supervision of Dr. Maqsood E. Nazar as agreed in previous contempt proceedings.
Issues: Dispute over construction of underground water tank, compliance with fire safety measures, mistrust between parties, and supervision of construction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for compliance with fire safety measures and directed the construction to be carried out under the supervision of Dr. Maqsood E. Nazar as agreed in previous proceedings.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of with the direction that the construction of the underground water tank will be carried out in accordance with law and under the supervision of Dr. Maqsood E. Nazar as agreed between the parties during the contempt proceedings in Cont. Cas (C) No. 690/2010.
G. ROHINI, J.
CM No. 23549/2016 (for condonation of delay)
For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
The application stands disposed of.
LPA No. 387/2016
1. This appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30.03.2016 in W.P. (C) No. 2095/2016.
2. The appellant herein claims to be the owner of the property bearing No. 469-472, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. W.P. (C) No. 2095/2016 was filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein, who are the tenants of different shops in the property owned by the appellant, challenging the order dated 22.01.2016 of the Director, Directorate of Delhi Fire Service for compliance of the undertaking given by them in W.P. (C) No. 5638-5645/2005 and as recorded in the order dated 06.04.2005 in the said petition. The said writ petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by the order under appeal dated 30.03.2016, the operative portion of which reads as under:
"16. I am therefore of the view that the petitioners should be given an opportunity to construct the water tank. However some conditions need to be imposed including of deposit of certain amount in this Court as security for constructing the water tank within time, in a good-workman like manner and without causing a harm/damage to the remaining property and for complying with undertaking given to the Court. Accordingly, the petitioners are permitted to construct the water tank only under their shops and subject to the following conditions:
(i) that if the petitioners within the period of 90 days from today do not complete the work of construction of underground water tank, the respondents nos. 1 & 2 would be entitled to disconnect the electricity and water supply to the shops in possession of the petitioners;
(ii) the petitioners in carrying out the said work will not cause any disruptions to the egress and ingress to the other shops or to the upper floors of the property;
(iii) the petitioners will carry out the work in non commercial hours and on holidays;
(iv) the petitioners shall on or before 6th April, 2016 deposit a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- in this Court and on or before 19th April, 2016 deposit the balance sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- in this Court as security aforesaid;
(v) the said sum when deposited be kept in a maximum interest bearing deposit for a period of three months;
(vi) if the amount is not deposited, the petitioners shall immediately stop all the works in the shops in their possession and the permission granted to the petitioners shall stand withdrawn;
(vii) the petitioners shall be jointly and severally liable for all consequences of the work to be so carried out."
3. As is evident from the orders passed earlier, the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 5638- 5645/2005 are bound to take all measures to make the said property fire safe. Alleging that they had failed to comply with the said undertaking, the impugned notice dated 22.01.2016 came to be issued by the Directorate of Delhi Fire Service.
4. It was recorded by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 16.03.2016 that the non-compliance of the undertaking was only to the extent of construction of 50,000 ltrs. capacity water storage tank. It appears that the landlord/appellant before us resisted construction of the water storage tank. Having taken note of the same, the learned Single Judge directed in the order dated 16.03.2016 as under:
"9. What is found is that though the place at which water storage tank is to be constructed has been identified and both the petitioners as well as the landlord are willing to bear the cost of construction of the water storage tank but the contractor to carry out the said work has not been identified because of mistrust between the petitioners and the landlord. Both feel that allowing access to the property for the purpose of construction of water storage tank in the hands of the contractor of the other may cause prejudice.
10. It has as such been suggested that the construction of water stora
