$~49 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 18901/2025, CM APPL. 78690/2025 & CM APPL.

78691/2025 MOHD IQBAL & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Vinod Kumar Mantoo, Mr. Hem Kumar, Ms. Niharika Mantoo, Advocates (M:98685785717)

versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Shilpa Dewan, ASC-MCD (M:9971192772)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

O R D E R

% 12.12.2025 CM APPL. 78691/2025 (For Exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application is accordingly, disposed of. W.P.(C) 18901/2025, CM APPL. 78690/2025

3. By way of the present writ petition, petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment dated 15^th November, 2025, passed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) Appeal No. 12/2025 and the order dated 03^rd June, 2025 passed by the Appellate Tribunal MCD (“ATMCD”), in Appeal No. 195/2025, whereby, the petitioners’ challenge to the demolition order dated 10^th March, 2025, was dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners purchased the property in question, i.e., Property No. 810, Ward No. XI, Gali Ahmed Shah, Haveli Azam Khan, Chitli Qabar, Darya Ganj, Delhi- 110006, via the registered sale deed dated 27^th April, 2023. The structure was over seven decades old, requiring urgent repairs.

5. Thus, the petitioners, after purchasing the subject property, submitted a written application dated 25^th October, 2023 the respondent-MCD seeking inspection, safety assessment and permission to carry out essential repairs/retrofitting.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent-MCD, however, issued notices dated 16^th February, 2024, declaring the building unsafe and asking occupants to vacate and undertake repairs.

7. Subsequently, some of the occupants of the property filed Civil Suit No. 406/2024, which ended up in a compromise order dated 05^th August, 2024. Pursuant to the said compromise, and strictly following the MCD’s directions, only the dangerous/damaged portions were demolished, and restorative reconstruction/retrofitting, was undertaken by the petitioners in compliance with Clause 2.1(d) of the Unified Building Bye Laws 2016 (“UBBL”), which specifically permits reconstruction of damaged portions without the need of a fresh Sanction Building Plan.

8. Thus, it is submitted that the demolition order dated 10^th March, 2025, issued by the MCD wrongly treated the petitioners’ repairs/retrofitting as an unauthorised reconstruction.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the ATMCD dismissed the challenge without appreciating the distinction between reconstruction of ‘damaged portions’ permitted under law and fresh construction requiring Sanction Plans.

10. It is submitted that the ATMCD did not even consider or summon the records from the Maintenance Department of the MCD in respect of the subject issue, which was necessary for proper determination of the real issues.

11. It is further submitted that the Principal District & Sessions Judge also committed grave error in mechanically affirming the order passed by the ATMCD, by wrongly concluding that the petitioners had admitted the ‘entire reconstruction’ ignoring the fact that the petitioners’ replies clearly stated that only the dangerous portions were restored for structural stability, as mandated byrespondent-MCD itself.

12. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the respondent-MCD.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent-MCD draws the attention of this Court to the letter dated 25^th October, 2023 written by the petitioners, which is reproduced as under:

14. By referring to the aforesaid letter, learned counsel for the respondent-MCD submits that it was the submission of the petitioners themselves that the property is in damaged, dilapidated and dangerous condition beyond repair. She, thus, submits that there was no prayer by the petitioners for restoration