The court emphasized the importance of public interest and the precautionary principle in ordering the disconnection of electricity due to non-compliance with fire safety measures.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. We have heard counsel for the parties.

2. The dispute in this case pertains to the disconnection of electricity to three premises i.e. 470-472 Chandni Chowk; one appeal has been preferred by Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta (hereafter referred to as “the tenant”) and the other by Ms. Nisha Sharma (hereafter referred to as “the landlady”).

3. The impugned order outlines that sometime in the year 2005 a Division Bench had recorded an undertaking by the tenant that within three months he would incorporate fire safety measures in accordance with law. Complaining that the undertaking was violated, the landlady approached this Court in contempt proceedings. The impugned order was made in the course of contempt proceedings, on 01.05.2017. In the meanwhile, on 24.03.2017, a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.387/2016 (filed by the landlady) clarified that the water tank would be constructed under supervision of one Dr. Maqsud E. Nazar in view of the consensual order made in a previous contempt proceeding i.e. CC No.690/2010.

4. The impugned order recorded inter alia as follows:

“7. Today, learned counsel for Delhi Fire Service has handed over a status report dated 24th April, 2017. The said report reads as under:-

“1. In pursuant to the order dated 23.02.2017 of the High Court of Delhi in WP (C) 2095/2016, Smt. Nisha Sharma vide letter dated 23.03.2017, Sarvshri Ramesh Kumar Yadav, Anil Kumar Gupta, Hari Om Aggarwal, Shiv Parkash Aggarwal AND Smt. Sunita Aggarwal vide letter dated 17.03.2017 submitted a formal request to this department for issue of NOC. The application was not in the time directed by the Hon’ble Court in its order dated 23.02.2017. However application was duly processed and the premises was inspected by the team of officers concerned of this department on 08.03.2017 and 06.04.2017. Ground floors shops and under ground water storage tank was inspected but inspection for upper floors was denied by Mr. R.D. Sharma on behalf of Smt Nisha Sharma (landlord). However report is as under:

2. The under ground water storage tank has been constructed under two shops but the details of the tank such as capacity, dimensions, operational condition, structural stability certificate was not provided. In addition to this fire pump, draw off connection, proper manhole with cover, water replenishment arrangement are not yet made. The tank was lying empty.

3. The affidavit dated 10.08.2016 filed by the petitioner in WP (C) 2095/2016 reveals that the capacity of the water storage tank is only 47,100 ltrs as against 50,000 ltrs.

4. The department is neither competent nor qualified for ascertaining the structural stability of the building and tank. Accordingly the Hon’ble Court may be requested to either appoint qualified structural engineer or engage some professional from IIT etc. for ascertaining structural stability and exact capacity of water storage tank.

5. In view of the above, the NOC/Fire Safety Certificate from fire safety point of view cannot be issued at this stage. Hon’ble High Court may be apprised accordingly.” (emphasis supplied)

8. From the aforesaid status report, it is apparent that the contention of the occupants Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. that the underground water storage tank is operational, is not correct.

9. Consequently, as the underground water storage tank is not operational and for nearly twelve years the order dated 06th April, 2005 has not been complied with, this Court is of the view that public interest demands that the buildings in question be sealed and the electricity connection be disconnected till the buildings in question have been made fire compliant.

10. After all, it is settled law that inter se disputes between the occupants and the owner cannot hold the public interest to ransom.

11. If either the owner or the occupants is of the view that the buildings have been sealed due to neglect or failure to discharge a legal duty on the part of the other party, the aggrieved party is given li