Back
2022 Supreme(Del) 2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.
Radha Krishan Garg - Appellant
Versus
North Delhi Municipal Corporation - Respondent
W.P.(C) 10432 of 2017, CM Appl. 8069 of 2018, CM Appl. 24637 of 2018, W.P.(C) 8249 of 2018, CM Appl. 46950 of 2019, CM Appl. 1043 of 2020, CM Appl. 1119 of 2020 and W.P.(C) 8250 of 2018 and W.P.(C) 8251 of 2018
Decided On : 20-09-2022
The central legal point established is the reliance on the report of the Structural Engineer, IIT advising the structural safety of the premises and the court's direction for the petitioners to carry out repairs, subject to re-assessment by the Corporation.
Headnote:
Demolition Order - Structural Safety - DMC Act Section 348(4) - [Section 348(4) of the DMC Act] - The court disposed of the petition with directions to the petitioners to carry out repairs in the subject premises as advised, subject to re-assessment of the premises by the Corporation from the angle of structural safety of the building.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, occupants of Shops at ground floor of a premises, challenged the demolition order and the order passed under Section 348(4) of the DMC Act, claiming that the Corporation passed the impugned order at the behest of the landlord with the motive of eviction. The subsequent report of Structural Engineer, IIT advised that the premises are structurally safe.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the petition with directions for the petitioners to carry out repairs in the subject premises as advised, subject to re-assessment of the premises by the Corporation from the angle of structural safety of the building.
Issues: Validity of the demolition order, ulterior motive of eviction, structural safety of the premises, and removal of debris.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the subsequent report of Structural Engineer, IIT advising that the premises are structurally safe and directed the petitioners to carry out repairs, subject to re-assessment by the Corporation.
Final Decision: The petition is disposed of with directions for the petitioners to carry out repairs in the subject premises as advised, subject to re-assessment of the premises by the Corporation from the angle of structural safety of the building.
ORDER
1. By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners, who claim to be occupants of Shops at ground floor of premises bearing No. 1388, Bazar Guliyan, Near Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006, have assailed the demolition order as well as the order dated 31.07.2018 passed under Section 348(4) of the DMC Act whereby portions at different floors in said premises have been identified to be dangerous.
2. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that the Corporation has passed the impugned order at the behest of respondent No. 2/landlord with the ulterior motive of evicting the petitioner from the subject premises.
3. It is further submitted that though vide impugned order portions of the subject property were declared dangerous for occupation on the basis of a report from the Structural Engineer of MCD, the same stands nullified in view of the subsequent report of Structural Engineer, IIT wherein it was advised that subject to carrying out repairs, the premises are structurally safe.
4. In this regard it is noted that on 24.10.2019, in view of the petitioner's submissions, this Court had directed the Registrar, IIT Delhi to nominate a Structural Engineer to carry out an inspection and file a report with respect to structural safety of the subject premises. In terms of the said order, a report dated 09.03.2020 has been placed on record wherein it has been observed as under:
"With reference to the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CMP No. 46950/2019 and WP(C) No. 8249/2018 in the matter of M/s H.K. Dental Solution vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation & Anr., to Registrar, IIT Delhi to nominate a Structural Engineer, the undersigned inspected the property situated at 1388/1 Gali Guliyan, Jama Masjid, Delhi, on 03/03/2020. A notice of inspection was sent to the petitioner and respondents on 26/02/2020 and was received by the petitioner, who was present at the location at the time of the inspection. However, the respondents were not present at the time of the inspection. The key observations of the undersigned are listed below.
On the basis of the visual inspection, it
