JUDGMENT

AMIT BANSAL, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking setting aside of the order dated 2nd May, 2016, passed by the Appellate Tribunal, MCD (hereinafter ‘ATMCD’) in Appeal No. 862/2014.

2. Vide the impugned order, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the Chief Architect, NDMC has been dismissed and the petitioner has been directed to deposit a penalty of Rs.20,55,713/- along with interest. Upon deposit of the said amount, the subject premises have been directed to be de-sealed.

3. Brief facts necessary for deciding the present writ petition are as under:

3.1. The petitioner is one of the co-owners of the property, being flat No.35, 9th floor, Dakshineshwar, 10 Hailey Road, New Delhi (hereinafter ‘subject premises’).

3.2. On 1st April, 2009, the subject premises were given on lease to a joint stock company, Aviation Holding Company (“SUKHOI”), having its registered office in Moscow, Russia. The lease clearly provided that the premises will not be used for commercial purposes.

3.3. The duration of the lease was for a period of five (5) years with effect from 1st April, 2009 to 31st March, 2014 and the rent was Rs.1.90 lakhs per month with escalation of 6% every year.

3.4. The tenant, in terms of the permission granted by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), was permitted to establish a liaison office in India, subject to the condition that it would not involve in any commercial trade or commercial activity.

3.5. The subject premises were sealed by the respondent/NDMC on 7th December, 2011, without any prior notice.

3.6. The petitioner, along with other co-owners, made various representations to the respondent/NDMC for the de-sealing of the subject premises, however, the respondent did not de-seal the subject premises.

3.7. On 14th December, 2011 and 23rd December, 2011, one of the co-owners of the subject premises made a request for the de-sealing of the subject premises, stating that the property was not being used and would not be used for commercial purposes in the future. An affidavit was also given along with the said request letter.

3.8. From 3rd April, 2012 to 9th April, 2012, the subject premises were temporarily de-sealed and the tenant of the petitioner vacated the premises and removed all its belongings. The premises were again sealed on 9th April, 2012.

3.9. On 18th September, 2012 and 7th February, 2012, the petitioner once again requested the respondent/NDMC to de-seal the subject premises, stating that the tenant had already vacated the subject premises and had handed over the possession of the same to the petitioner.

3.10. Since the respondent did not de-seal the subject premises, the petitioner filed a writ petition, being W.P.(C) 3860/2014, before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of on 4th June, 2014, directing that the petition be treated as a representation to the NDMC and directing NDMC to take a decision on the representation.

3.11. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, a speaking order was passed by the Chief Architect, NDMC, on 30th June, 2014, after granting a personal hearing to the petitioner, directing the petitioner to deposit a penalty of Rs.20,55,713/- on account of misuse of the subject premises and thereupon file an application seeking permanent de-sealing of the premises.

3.12. The petitioner filed an appeal before the ATMCD, challenging the order passed by the Chief Architect, which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 2nd May, 2016.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by ATMCD, the petitioner has filed the present petition.

5. The present petition came up for hearing before this Court on 2nd June, 2016, on which date, it was directed that upon the petitioner depositing in Court a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) in the name of the Registrar General of this Court for a sum of Rs.20,55,713/-, the NDMC shall de-seal the subject premises.

6. On 20th February, 2017, the aforesaid sum was deposited by the petitioner and accordingly, t