Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
Sukhesh Chand Gupta - Appellant
Versus
New Delhi Municipal Council - Respondent
W.P.(C) 10425/2021
Decided On : 16-11-2021
NDMC - Property Sealing - NDMC Act, 1994, Section 239(1)(b) - Unified Building Bye Laws (UBBL-2016), Clause 2.01(d) - The court discussed the provisions of the NDMC Act, 1994, specifically Section 239(1)(b) which requires prior permission for alteration or repairs involving the removal or re-erection of any wall, and Unified Building Bye Laws (UBBL-2016), Clause 2.01(d) which allows certain construction activities without prior approval. The court highlighted the definitions of load bearing walls and partition walls under the building bye laws and emphasized that the removal of internal partition walls, which are not load bearing, does not require prior permission.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of the sealing order issued by NDMC for carrying out unauthorised construction work. The petitioner claimed to have obtained permission for interior renovation work but NDMC alleged violation of building bye-laws and sealing of the premises.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner did not carry out any construction activity contrary to the building bye-laws or the permission sought from NDMC. The court also noted that there was no evidence of load bearing walls being removed and emphasized that the sealing order cannot be sustained.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged unauthorised construction work, violation of building bye-laws, and the requirement of prior permission under the NDMC Act for alterations or repairs involving the removal of walls.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the definitions of load bearing walls and partition walls under the building bye laws and highlighted that the removal of internal partition walls, which are not load bearing, does not require prior permission. The court also noted the lack of evidence to support the allegations of unauthorised construction.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned sealing order and directed NDMC to de-seal the subject premises, allowing the petition in favor of the petitioner.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral). - The hearing was conducted through video conferencing.
2. Petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 26.07.2021 whereby the respondent - New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC for short) has sealed shops Nos. 43, 44-45 and 46 located within Plot No.1, Bengali Market, New Delhi. Petitioner further seeks a direction to respondent No.1 to de-seal the subject premises.
3. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner is the owner of entire plot No.1, Bengali Market of which, subject four shops are a part. As per the petitioner the four shops were separated from each other with wooden partitions in front portion and with permanent wall partition at the rear portion.
4. It is contended that the Shop No.46 was under the illegal occupation of the sons of Mr. Gulzari Lal and Mr. Gulzari Lal was in possession of the subject premises as a tenant since the year 1970s. It is submitted that the possession of shop No. 46 was obtained from the legal heirs of Mr. Gulzari Lal through orders of the Court after prolonged litigation.
5. It is contended that petitioner has let out the subject four shops to HDFC Bank for the purposes of opening a branch. It is contended that HDFC Bank requested the petitioner to carry out certain additions and alterations in the subject premises by their letter dated 03.12.2020. Along with the letter they had given the proposed interior layout as well as the existing site plan of the subject shops.
6. Petitioner by its letter dated 04.12.2020 requested the NDMC to allow renovation/fit-out work in the said shops. Along with the said request letter dated 04.12.2020, copy of the letter of HDFC Bank dated 03.12.2020 along with the existing site plan and proposed interior layout plan of the premises was forwarded to the NDMC.
7. In the letter dated 04.12.2020 even though a request was made to NDMC to allow renovation/fit out work, it was stated that as per the understanding of the petitioner, proposed work was permissible under law.
8. By Letter dated 29.12.2020, Respondent NDMC informed the Petitioner that for the repair/renovation/fit-out work limited to the extent as stipulated in clause 2.0.1(d) of Unified Building Bye Laws (UBBL-2016), no notice and building permit was required. Petitioner was requested not to carry out any work beyond clause 2.0.1(d) of the Unified Building Bye-Laws without obtaining prior approval of NDMC.
9. Petitioner thereafter by letter dated 30.03.2021, referring to the letter of NDMC dated 29.12.2020 sought a clarification as to whether erection/re-erection/removal of any wooden/glass door/window/partition at the given points were allowed as per clause 2.01(d) of UBBL, 2016.
10. In response to the said letter NDMC by its letter dated 01.04.2021 reproduced clause 2.01(d) and stated that no permission was required for carrying out construction activities within the ambit of 2.01(d).
11. As per the petitioner, petitioner thereafter commenced the repair/renovation/fit out work.
12. A work stop notice was issued by the NDMC on 12.07.2021 stating that petitioner was carrying out unauthorised construction work without prior sanction of the Chairperson, NDMC. Reference was drawn in the said order dated 12.07.2021 to Schedule A and the same is extracted as under:-
“1. Removed internal walls and carrying out repair/renovation work i.e. falls ceiling work, painting work, frame work, wooden work etc at premises No.43, 44-45 & 46 at Plot No.1, Bengali Market, New Delhi, unauthorisedly without prior approval of NDMC.”
13. In response to the said work stop notice, petitioner specifically stated that no construction work was being carried out in the subject property and only interior renovation work was being done in terms of the permission which was sought from the NDMC.
14. Subsequently on 26.07.2021 the impugned sealing order has been passed.
15. The impugned sealing order reiterates Schedule A i.e. “Removed internal walls and carrying out repair/renovation work i.e. falls ceiling work, p
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the removal of internal partition walls, which are not load bearing, does not require prior permission under the building bye laws.
Sealing orders related to building renovations cannot stand if there is insufficient evidence of load-bearing walls, and if the work conforms to building bye-laws.
Sealing of unauthorised construction does not require a written order if a previous sealing order exists. Petitioners' lack of clean hands can lead to dismissal of their petition.
The court established that the exercise of sealing powers under the Municipalities Act must be proportional to the alleged violations, and minor renovations do not warrant such extreme measures.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
