2025 INSC 1324 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6077 OF 2018 SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION APPELLANT(S)

THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER VERSUS BHARAT BHUSHAN JAIN (DEAD) THR. LRS. RESPONDENT(S)

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6078 OF 2018

O R D E R

J.B.PARDIWALA & K.V.VISWANATHAN,JJ.

1. These appeals arise from the judgments and orders passed by the High Court of Delhi dated 11.05.2015 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1497 of 2012 and 01.06.2017 in Review Petition No. 217/2017 in W.P.(C) No. 1497/2012 respectively by which the appeal filed by the appellant herein, namely, the South Delhi Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by C D H at A e N : M2 D 0 R 2uE 5. S 1 H 1n.17icipal Corporation through its Commissioner came to be Reason:

dismissed, thereby affirming the order passed by the learned District Judge granting deemed sanction to the plans which were put forward by the respondents herein before the Corporation for construction of a residential house.

2. The short facts giving rise to this appeal may be stated thus:-

(I) The respondents herein before us have a residential house of their ownership bearing No. 4752 and 4758 respectively situated at 23, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. This house is almost 85 years old and is in a dilapidated condition. In such circumstances, the respondents decided to dismantle it and put up new construction to be utilised for their residence. The plans were accordingly prepared and put forward before the appellant in the year 2010.

(II) It appears that no decision was taken by the authority concerned on the sanctioning of the plans put forward by the respondents. In such circumstances, the respondents went before the Appellate Authority MCD, which is a Tribunal –

constituted under the provisions of Section 347A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (for short “the Act”). The Tribunal allowed the application and granted deemed sanction of the plans.

(III) Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Tribunal MCD, the appellant went in appeal –

before the Additional District Judge, by way of Appeal No. 1/2011. The appeal filed by the appellant herein came to be dismissed by the Court of the Additional District Judge vide order dated 13.02.2012, thereby affirming the order passed by the Tribunal.

(IV) Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Court of the Additional District Judge, the appellant went before the High Court by way of a writ petition. The writ petition also came to be dismissed.

(V) We are informed that against the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court, a Letters Patent Appeal was also filed, however, the same came to be dismissed on the ground of being not maintainable.

(VI) The Special Leave Petition preferred against the order passed in the Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.12.2016. Thereafter, the appellant preferred another Special Leave Petition against the order of the Learned Single Judge and obtained liberty to seek review of the order passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 1497 of 2012. The said Review Petition came to be dismissed on 01.06.2017.

3. In such circumstances, referred to above, appellant is here before us with the present appeal.

4. Ms. Vandana Sehgal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, vehemently submitted that the High Court committed an egregious error in passing the impugned judgment and order. According to her, it is not permissible for the respondents to put up new construction in the form of a new house. Although the present residential house may be in a dilapidated condition, and it may be permissible for the respondents to continue to reside in such a dilapidated house, yet the law does not permit the respondents to dismantle the present structure and put up a new house. According to her, the new bylaws do not permit the respondents to dismantle the house and put up a new structure. In other words, according to the learned counsel, the constructi