Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Miscellaneous Application No 1572 of 2021 In Civil Appeal No 5041 of 2021 Supertech Limited Appellant(s)

Versus Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Respondent(s)

Association and Others

O R D E R

1 A miscellaneous application has been filed by Supertech Limited seeking modification of the judgment and order of this Court dated 31 August 2021.

The reliefs which are sought in the Miscellaneous Application read thus:

“(a) Modify the Judgment dated 31.08.2021…to the extent that the Applicant may demolish a part of tower T-17 as stipulated in paragraph 6 hereinabove;

(b) Pass an order of status quo in respect of Towers 16 & 17 in Emerald Court, Plot No. 4, Sector 93A, NOIDA till final orders are passed in the present application.”

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Chetan Kumar Date: 2021.10.09 Reason:

2 A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad directed the demolition of Towers 16 and 17 by the third respondent, New Okhla Industrial Development Authority, in Emerald Court constructed by the applicant and situated on Plot No 4, Sector 93A, NOIDA. While afÏrming the judgment of the Division Bench, this Court has recorded the following conclusions in its judgment, which is reported as Supertech Limited vs Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association and Others¹ “185. To summarize our findings, the documentary materials referred to and analyzed in this judgment indicate that:

(i) The land allotted to appellant under the original lease agreement and the supplementary lease deed constitute one plot;

(ii) The land which was allotted through the supplementary lease deed forms a part of original Plot No 4, and would be governed by the same terms and conditions as the original lease deed;

(iii) The sanction given by NOIDA on 26 November 2009 and 2 March 2012 for the construction of T-16 and T-17 is violative of the minimum distance requirement under the NBR 2006, NBR 2010 and NBC 2005;

(iv) An effort was made to get around the violation of the minimum distance requirement by representing that T-1 together with T-16 and T-17 form one cluster of buildings in the same block. This representation was sought to be bolstered by providing a space frame between T-1 and T- 17. The case that T-1, T-16 and T-17 are part of one block is directly contrary to the appellant's stated position in its representations to the flat buyers as well as in the counter afÏdavit before the High Court. The suggestion that T-1, T- 16 and T-17 are part of one block is an after-thought and contrary to the record;

(v) After realizing that the building block argument would not pass muster, another false case was sought to be set up

2021 SCC OnLline SC 648 with the argument that T-1 and T-17 are dead end sides, thereby obviating the need to comply with the minimum distance requirements. This argument is belied by the comprehensive report submitted by NBCC. The sides of T- 1 and T-17 facing each other are not dead end sides since both the sides have vents/egresses facing the other building;

(vi) By constructing T-16 and T-17 without complying with the Building Regulations, the fire safety norms have also been violated;

(vii) The first revised plan of 29 December 2006 contained a clear provision for a garden area adjacent to T-1. In the second revised plan of 26 November 2009, the provision for garden area was obliterated to make way for the construction of Apex and Ceyane (T-16 and T-17). The common garden area in front of T-1 was eliminated by the construction of T-16 and T-17. This is violative of the UP Apartments Act 2010 since the consent of the flat owners was not sought before modifying the plan promised to the flat owners; and (viii) T-16 and T-17 are not part of a separate and distinct phase (Phase-II) with separate amenities and infrastructure. The supplementary lease deed stipulates that the they are part of the original project. Hence, the consent of the individual flat owners of