Delhi District Court
North Delhi Municipal Corporation vs Smt Sneh Lata on 31 August, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAM PRAKASH PANDEY,
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTH)
ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
MCD Appeal NO. 08/17
North Delhi Municipal Corporation
Through its Commissioner
S.P.M. Civic Centre, J.L.N. Marg,
New Delhi110002 ....Appellant
Versus
1. Smt Sneh Lata
W/o Sh. Naresh Gupta,
R/o BJ43, West Shalimar Bagh, Delhi
2. Smt Kavita Gupta,
W/o Sh. Sandeep Gupta,
R/o D3/29, Ashok Vihar, Delhi
3. Smt. Santosh Aggarwal,
W/o Sh. T.C. Aggarwal,
R/o BC38, West Shalimar Bagh, Delhi
4. Smt Jyoti Mittal,
W/o Sh. Vikas Mittal,
R/o KU155, Pitampura, Delhi
5. Smt Komal Mittal
W/o Sh. Neeraj Mittal
R/o KU155, Pitampura, Delhi .....Respondents
JUDGMENT
Date of institution : 26.05.2017
Date of arguments : 06.08.2019
Date of judgment : 31.08.2019
Appearance: Sh. Ashutosh Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the
Appellant.
Sh. Dilip Rastogi, Ld. Counsel for respondents RCT No. 08/17 Page 1 of 25 North DMC vs Smt Snehlata and Ors JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal under Section 347D of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the DMC Act") is directed against the order dated 14.03.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) passed by Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, the ld. Appellate Tribunal, MCD, Delhi in Appeal No. 438/AT/MCD/2015 filed by respondents Smt Sneh Lata and Others against the appellant North Delhi Municipal Corporation.
2. The facts in brief leading to the filing of the present appeals are that the respondents had filed an appeal u/s 347(B) of the DMC Act assailing the rejection of regularization order dated 07.07.2015 vide File NO. D/EE(B)/II/CLZ/2015/3149 passed by the Competent Authority, North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Civil Lines Zone, Delhi110054 in respect of property of the respondents bearing no. H2/7A, Model Town, Delhi9.
3. The respondents are the owners of the built up property bearing no. H2/7A, Model Town, Delhi9 built on plot measuring 1149.96 sq. yards having purchased the same by RCT No. 08/17 Page 2 of 25 North DMC vs Smt Snehlata and Ors virtue of registered sale deed. Initially, one Sh. Nihal Chand Mehra and Sh. Harish Chander Gupta had jointly purchased the plot no. 7, Block H2, Model Town, Delhi measuring 1922.80 sq. meters vide registered sale deed dated 11.03.1964 which was orally partitioned in equal shares and in terms of the said partition, Eastern side portion of plot no. 7, measuring 1149.96 sq. yards (961.40 sq. meters) fell to the share of Sh. Nihal Chand while remaining portion of the said plot fell to the share of other owner. The said partition was declared and confirmed by virtue of decree dated 26.10.1966 in Suit No. 341/1966 by the court of Sub Judge, 1st Class, Delhi. Upon the demise of Sh. Nihal Chand Mehra on 28.10.1979, the said property fell to the ownership of Smt Dropti Devi wife of Sh. Nihal Chand Mehra on the basis of Will duly registered on 03.09.1979. Smt Dropti Devi sold and transferred the said property vide three separate sale deeds duly registered on 10.08.2005 in favour of (1) Smt Bhagwan Kaur Oberoi, (2) Smt Savitri Devi and (3) Sh. Sudish Kumar, who further sold and transferred their shares in the entire property in favour of Smt Rominder Kaur vide three separate sale deeds duly registered on 26.09.2006/29.09.2005, 14.11.2006/ RCT No. 08/17 Page 3 of 25 North DMC vs Smt Snehlata and Ors 23.11.2006 and 24.11.2006. The said Smt Rominder Kaur transferred all her rights in the said property by virtue of gift deed dated 11.02.2010 in favour of Smt Navneet Kaur duly registered on 11.02.2010. Due to some dispute regarding ownership of the property in question, a civil suit bearing C.S. (OS) No. 233/2010 tittled as Sardar Prehlad Singh Chandhok and another vs Mrs. Rominder Kaur and anotehr was filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which was subsequently compromised vide compromise decree dated 25.03.2010/ 26.04.2010 passed by the Hon'ble High Court and in terms thereof 50% of the share of the said property fell to the share of Sardar Prehlad Singh Chandhok and Smt Harbans Kaur and remaining 50% of the same fell to the sahre of Sardar Kulbir Singh Chandhok, Smt Rominder Kaur Chandhok and Smt Navneet Kaur. Thereafter, Sardar Prehlad Singh Chandhok and Smt Navneet Kaur being joint owners of the entire property sold and transferred the said property vide four separate sale deeds all dated 11.05.2010 in favour of the appellant no.1 to 4.
Subsequently, Smt Kavita Gupta, appellant no.2 and Smt Sneh Lata, appellant sold and transferred their undivided share in the RCT No. 08/17 Page 4 of 25 North DMC vs Smt Snehlata and Ors said property to the extent of 10% and 15% respectively in favour of Smt Komal Mittal appellant no.5 vide sale deed dated 13.10.2010. Accordingly, appellants have become the joint owners of the said property bearing no. H2/7 (H2/7A), Model Town, Delhi.
4. It is stated by respondents that two portions of the property are separate and distinct since 1964. Since the property was having old structure having been raised way back and was in dilapidated condition, the respondents redeveloped the same so as to enjoy the property for their residence in their portion admeasuring 961.40 sq. meters in terms of Building Byelaws within their proportionate FAR as advised in as much as the owners of the other part refused to issue NOC and at present the property is comprising of ground floor and half first floor.
5. The appellant had issued a show cause notice dated 16.02.2015 vide file no. 54/C/72/BII/UC/CLZ/2015 and thereafter served the demolition notice and even took some RCT No. 08/17 Page 5 of 25 North DMC vs Smt Snehlata and Ors demolition action qua the property. Thereafter, respondents, in order to resolve the dispute, submitted representation to the appellant on 10.03.2015 with the request to regularize the building. The appellant issued an I/N dated 24.03.2015 requiring the respondents to file documents. The respondents submitted a reply dated 27.03.2015 alongwith deficit documents and also submitted detailed representation dated 15.05.2015 but the appellant rejected the regularization application vide letter dated 03.07.2015 received on 11.07.2015 on the ground that there is a subdivision of the plot and there is no policy to regularize the sub divided plot.
6. Notice of the appeal of the respondents before the Appellate Tribunal MCD was issued to the appellant and appellant filed its record. After considering the submissions of the both the parties, Appellate Tribunal MCD vide impugned order dated 14.03.2017 has set aside the order dated 03.07.2015 of the appellant corporation and directed it to decide the regularization application of the respondents without going into the question of subdivision of plot or seeking NOC from coowner / owner of RCT No. 08/17 Page 6 of 25 North DMC vs Smt Snehlata and Ors other portion of plot. However, all the other issues like maximum permission ground, coverage, FAR, number of dwelling units as permissible in the plot or any other condition will be considered by the appellant while deciding the regularization application.
7. Aggrieved by the said impugned order dated 14.03.2017 passed by the ld. Appellate Tribunal, MCD, the appellant filed the appeal on the grounds that:
i) that the Appellate Tribunal MCD had taken the extraneous facts and circumstances while passing the impugned order;
ii) that the Appellate Tribunal failed to appreciate that the respondents or their predecessor in interest never obtained any permission to raise/erect construction on their portion of the property being sub divided portion;
iii) that the appellate tribunal failed to appreciate that the respondents indulged in raising unauthorised construction in their portion and then applied for regularization without applying sanction of building plan and then raise construction;
iv) that the appellate tribunal failed to appreciate that the respondents contended that they were only carrying out RCT No. 08/17 Page 7 of 25 North DMC vs Smt Snehlata and Ors permissible repairs in their portion of property and has applied for regularization without prejudice to their rights and contentions whereas the said fact is incorrect as the sale deeds in favour of respondents shows that they have purchased the vacant plot but not the building;
v) that the appellate tribunal erred in holding that respondents' acquiring the right, title and interest in purchasing the part of property no. H2/7, Model Town, Delhi is not a case of sub division of one plot;
vi) that the appellate tribunal failed to appreciate that the judicial pronouncement referred in impugned order is applicable only in cases where there is one residential plot having more than one building on it, unlike the present case where single residential plot has been subdivided in two parts and respondents acquired ownership right of one part but are applying for regularization of unauthorised construction including owners of other part of the property;
vii) that the appellate tribunal failed to appreciate that the respondents purchased vacant plot under different sale deeds as such ratio of G.P. Sharma vs Hari Shankar Sharma is not RCT No. 08/17 Page 8 of 25 North DMC vs Smt Snehlata and Ors applicable as in the said case, it was held that only the constructed area was divided amongst the parties but not the land underneath and also that whether any permission from the lessor was required or not unlike the present case;
viii) that the appellate tribunal failed to appreciate that the judicial precedents have interpreted clause 4.4.3 of Master Plan of Delhi2021 by holding that no sub division is allowed, however, if there is more than one buildings in one residential plot, the sum of the built up area and ground coverage of all such building shall not exceed the built up area and ground coverage permissible in that plot and in the present case, since the division is not of the building but of the plot itself (vertical sub division), the citations relied upon by the tribunal are not applicable but are actually against the case of the respondent.
ix) that the appellate tribunal failed to appreciate that the there has been no whisper about the fact that the respondents have already got mutated the respective portions purchased by them in their favour so as to entitle any help from the judicial pronouncements. (A copy of the order of North DMC dated 23.08.2017 ordering change of name of Tax Payers in Property RCT No. 08/17 Page 9 of 25 North DMC vs Smt Snehlata and Ors Tax Assessment Record in respect of property No. H2/7, measuring 961.40 sq. meters has been placed on record by the respondents during the pendency of this appeal).
x) that the appellate tribunal failed to appreciate that the property/plot has been sub divided which is not permissible under the Building Bye Laws and also by virtue of provisions of Master Plan of Delhi2021 and thus the impugned order is contrary to settled statutory provisions;
In view of the submissions, the appellant has prayed that the impugned order dated 14.03.2017 passed by the Appellate Tribunal MCD be set aside and quashed in toto.
8. The appeal has been contested on behalf of the respondents. However, they have chosen not to file any reply to the appeal and orally contested the appeal. It is claimed that it is abuse of process of law and a tactic to cover up the lapses on the part of the appellant. It is also claimed that the ld. Appellate Tribunal MCD has passed the impugned order while appreciating all the facts and law and evidence relied upon by the parties. It is claimed that there is no illegality in the RCT No. 08/17 Page 10 of 25 North DMC vs Smt Snehlata and Ors impugned judgment and order and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
9. I have heard the ld. counsel for the parties at the bar and have extensively gone through the entire material on record, including the records of the Tribunal.
10. It is argued by ld. Counsel for the appellant that the Appellate Tribunal MCD had taken the extraneous facts and circumstances into consideration while passing the impugned order; that the respondents never obtained any permission to raise/erect construction on their portion of the property being sub divided portion and even applied for regularization without applying sanction of building plan; that the sale deeds of respondents show that they have purchased vacant plot and not the building and they were not carrying out permissible repairs on portion of the property.
11. It is further argued by ld. Counsel for the appellant that the tribunal erred in observing that the property in question is RCT No. 08/17 Page 11 of 25 North DMC vs Smt Snehlata and Ors not a case of sub division of one plot; the citations referred in impugned order are not applicable as same are applicable for a residential plot having more than one building unlike the present case where single plot has been sub divided in two parts and have applied for regularization of entire property including the other part.
12. It is further argued that citations relied upon in the impugned order have interpreted clause 4.4.3 of Master Plan of Delhi2021 by holding that no sub division is allowed and if there is more than one building in a plot, the sum of built up area shall not exceed the built up area and ground coverage permissible in that plot. It is further argued by the ld. Counsel for the appellant that the respondents have not got mutated the respective portions purchased by them in their favour as to entitle them any help from the citations referred in the impugned order.
13. Per contra, it is argued by the ld. Counsel for the respondents that the appellate tribunal has rightly passed the RCT No. 08/17 Page 12 of 25 North DMC vs Smt Snehlata and Ors impugned order by appreciating all the facts and circumstances and the settled position of law. It is further argued that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and order.
14. It is admitted case of the parties that property in question admeasuring 1922.80 square meters was purchased in the year 1964 and the same was divided into two parts between Sh. Nihal Chand and Sh. Harish Chander Gupta (now respondents herein) and was confirmed by the decree dated 29.10.1966 passed by Sh. Shiv Dass Tiagi, SubJudge, Ist Class in the Suit No. 341/1966. The eastern portion which was numbered as H2/7A, Model Town, Delhi came into the share of respondents herein and western portion came into the ownership of Sh. Rajneesh Gupta being LR of Sh. H.C. Gupta.
15. Admittedly, the respondents raised construction in their portion without obtaining sanction u/s 336 of the DMC Act from the appellant corporation. The owner of the other portion Sh. Rajneesh Gupta made complaint for unauthorised construction to the appellant corporation and the appellant got registered FIR RCT No. 08/17 Page 13 of 25 North DMC vs Smt Snehlata and Ors dated 16.02.2015 vide its letter No. 54/C72/B II/UC/CLZ/2015 for unauthorised construction. Thereupon, appellant corporation passed demolition order dated 26.02.2015 u/s 343 of the DMC Act. Then, the respondents applied for regularization of construction vide application dated 27.03.2015. The appellant corporation rejected the application of regularization of the respondents observing that the plot in question has been sub divided and as per policy/norms of regularization, sub divided plot cannot be regularized.
16. Perusal of record reveals that as per MPD2021 and Building Byelaws, in ChapterIV, para 4.4.3 - Control of Building/Buildings within residential premises wherein in point
(iv) of terms and conditions, it is mentioned that subdivision of plot is not permitted. It is also mentioned that if there are more than one buildings in one residential plot, the sum of the built up area and ground coverage of all such buildings shall not exceed the built up area and ground coverage permissible in that plot. However, the appellant corporation has not mentioned about prohibition of regularization of construction on sub RCT No. 08/17 Page 14 of 25 North DMC vs Smt Snehlata and Ors divided plot under any specific law.
17. In such situation, the appellate tribunal has rightly framed the question as to whether the plot in question is a sub divided plot or the respondents had constructed the second building in the said plot. It is admitted position that plot in question was partitioned and divided into two parts measuring 961.40 square meters each in the year 1966 between Sh. Nihal Chand Mehra and Sh. Harish Chander Gupta and the same was confirmed vide decree dated 29.10.1966 by the court of Sub Judge Ist Class in Suit No. 341/1966. Now eastern portion is owned by the respondents herein and the other portion is owned by Sh. Rajneesh Gupta.
18. The perusal of record reveals that the appellate tribunal has observed that division of the plot either due to partition between the coowners or due to the division between the legal heirs of a single owner is not sub division of plot as the same is not transfer of property. However, the appellant corporation has ignored the fact that the plot in question had been partitioned in RCT No. 08/17 Page 15 of 25 North DMC vs Smt Snehlata and Ors two parts vide decree dated 29.10.1966 and the appellant has refused sanction/regularization of the construction of the partitioned plot which amounts to nullifying the ibid decree dated 29.10.1966. When the plot in question was partitioned and divided in two parts, the aggrieved party could have approached the higher courts pleading that the partition/division of plot is not permissible under the law and would have got the ibid decree nullified from the higher courts but no one has done so. Moreover, irrespective of any partition/division of plot, there will be a single identity of the plot for the appellant corporation and coowners shall continue to remain the owner of the entire plot. Therefore, all the policy/norms as applicable to single plot i.e. ground coverage, FAR etc. will apply to the sub divided plot and the appellant should tackle the issue of regularization of construction as a single unit of plot but the parties will not be entitled to get the excess benefit as subdivision makes the plot smaller in size.
19. The appellate tribunal has obtained the support in his aforesaid view by relying upon the judgment of G.P. Sharma vs RCT No. 08/17 Page 16 of 25 North DMC vs Smt Snehlata and Ors Hari Shankar Sharma, 2014 SCConline Del 1042 wherein our own Hon'ble High Court has held that division of plot between coowner due to partition of plot is not transfer of plot, hence same is not subdivision of plot.
20. The appellate tribunal has also relied upon the judgment of Sanggita Kotawala vs MCD & Anr. in Writ Petition (C) No. 9036/2009 dated 18.01.2010 whereby relying upon the judgment of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Smt Usha Devi Sharma, 2006 (127) DLT 275, wherein it was held by the Hon'ble High Court that NOC from coowner is not required while granting sanction of building plan by the corporation.
21. The appellate tribunal has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Kanwal Sibal vs New Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors in W.P.(C) No. 3637/2013 dated 27.05.2015 whereby Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru while dealing with the issue of rejecting the sanction of the building plan by the New Delhi Municipal Corporation due to sub division of plot on the ground that sanction of building plan for one floor RCT No. 08/17 Page 17 of 25 North DMC vs Smt Snehlata and Ors would amount to sub division of plot which is not permissible as per MPD2021, has set aside the order of rejection of sanction of building plan and held as under: " 20. The reliance placed by NDMC on condition (iv) of Para 4.4.3 of MPD2021 is also not apposite. The said condition is quoted below: "(iv) Subdivision of plots is not permitted. However, if there are more than one buildings in one residential plot, the sum of the built up area and ground coverage of all such buildings, shall not exceed the built up area and ground coverage permissible in that plot".
21. Para 4.4.3 of MPD 2021 relates to Control norms for building/buildings within residential premises. Part A of the said regulations provides for the maximum permissible ground coverage, FAR, number of dwelling units for different sizes of residential plots etc. The aforesaid condition prescribing subdivision of plots has to be read in context of the development control regulations specifying the aforesaid parameters. The substratal purpose of MPD 2021 is planned development of Delhi. Undisputedly, for the purposes of applying the parameters such as FAR, maximum ground coverage, maximum number of dwelling units etc. a plot of land in a plotted development is considered as a single RCT No. 08/17 Page 18 of 25 North DMC vs Smt Snehlata and Ors unit. The aforesaid prohibition to subdivision does not affect the title as to the plots or the right of any one or more persons to construct thereon. As an illustration, if a plot of 1000 sq. meters is owned by two persons equally who may or may not have divided the same amongst themselves it would not be open for the said persons to insist the parameters as applicable to plots of 500 sq. meters be applied to each of their shares. Under the MPD 2021, ground coverage for a 1000 sq. meters plot is only 40% but for a plot of 500 sq. meters, 75% of ground coverage is permissible. Undeniably, the norms as applicable in respect of Maximum Ground Coverage, FAR, number of dwelling units etc. as specified for a plot of 1000 sq. meters would be applicable. This is quite different from stating that even if a person is entitled to construct on a portion of the property, he would, nonetheless, require the permission of the other because the unit for applying the norms fixed is a single plot. Thus, the parties owning a single plot may demarcate their shares and if the ownership of demarcated shares is recognised and accepted by NDMC, there would be no requirement for the owners of the RCT No. 08/17 Page 19 of 25 North DMC vs Smt Snehlata and Ors demarcated shares to seek the NOC from other coowners in order to enable to them to carry out the development of their property. Thus, the contention that the building plan must be signed by all the owners by virtue of clause (iv) of the conditions to paragraph 4.4.3 of MPD 2021 is not sustainable.
22. It is also necessary to bear in mind the principal purpose for framing Building ByeLaws. Clearly, the same is to ensure that the buildings are constructed in conformity with the norms and parameters stipulated for planned development. Thus, in cases where an indefensible right of ownership of a property is established and recognised, NDMC would have to confine its examination to the issue germane to planned development".
22. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the illustration as discussed in the judgment Kanwal Sibbal (supra) is only obiter dicta and such observation does not have any binding effect upon the courts subordinate to the Hon'ble High Court. It is further argued that such observations cannot be said to be ratio decidendi which does have a binding effect upon the courts subordinate to the Hon'ble High Court as our RCT No. 08/17 Page 20 of 25 North DMC vs Smt Snehlata and Ors own High Court has only decided the issue of horizontal sub division of a plot and not the vertical subdivision of a plot and as such, the said judgment is not applicable in the instant case.
23. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru has discussed the aforesaid illustration while considering substratal purpose of the MPD 2021 in planned development of Delhi and has discussed the illustration about the vertical sub division of a plot. Hon'ble High Court has also observed that there would be no requirement for the owners of demarcated shares to seek the NOC from the other coowners in order to enable them to seek the development of their property. It means that there is no requirement to submit any NOC or consent for getting sanction of a building plan or regularization of any construction in case of subdivision of any plot. I do no agree with the ld. Counsel for the appellant that the illustration given by the Hon'ble High Court was only by way of a casual reference which is applicable only to horizontal division of a plot. The Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Harish Bajaj and anr. vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation in LPA No. 134/2017, (date of RCT No. 08/17 Page 21 of 25 North DMC vs Smt Snehlata and Ors decision 26.04.2017) has quoted the same illustration and legal position as explained by Hon'ble Single Judge in the aforesaid judgment of Kanwal Sibbal case (Supra) while observing about the similar issue before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. However, the ld. Counsel for the appellant has failed to file any contrary judgment to judgment of Kanwal Sibbal case (supra) or Harish Bajaj case (supra) wherein the legal position clarified by the the said judgments have been ever disturbed by a larger bench or Apex Court. As such, observations made by the Hon'ble High Court in Kanwal Sibbal case (supra) reiterated in Harish Bajaj case (supra) has become the ratio decidendi for the courts subordinate to it. After going through said judgment and in the absence of any clear cut law on the issue in hand, the observations made by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vibhu Bakhru have been considered as ratio decidendi and binding predecent. The appellate tribunal rightly considered the aforesaid citation while deciding the issue in hand as the illustration as discussed in the aforesaid judgment clearly suits the situation of the instant case and as such, the said illustration worked as a ratio in the present case.
RCT No. 08/17 Page 22 of 25 North DMC vs Smt Snehlata and Ors
24. As regards the objection of the appellant that the respondent had never obtained permission to raise the construction in their portion and have applied for regularization after indulging in raising the construction, ld.Counsel for the respondents has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Muzaffar Ali vs. MCD 1995 Supp.(4) SCC 426, wherein under similar circumstances, it was held:
4. However, it is to be pointed out that the mere departure from the authorised plan or putting up a construction without sanction does not ipso facto and without more necessarily and inevitably justify demolition of the structure. There are cases and cases of such unauthorised constructions. Some are amenable to compounding and some may not be. There may be cases of grave and serious breaches of the licensing provisions or building regulations that may call for the extreme step of demolition.
5. These are matters for the authorities to consider at the appropriate time having regard to nature of the transgressions. It is open to the petitioners to move the authorities for such relief as may be available to them at law. The petitioners may, if so advised, file a plan indicating the nature and extent of the RCT No. 08/17 Page 23 of 25 North DMC vs Smt Snehlata and Ors unauthorised constructions carried out and seek regularisation, if such regularisation is permissible. The dismissal of the petitions will not stand in the way of the authorities examining and granting such relief as the petitioners may be entitled to under law. The petitioners may move the authorities in this behalf within one week for such compounding or regularisation and also for stay of demolition pending consideration of their prayer. During the period of one week from today, however, no demolition shall be made.
25. The same judgment was quoted and relied upon by Apex Court in a subsequent case of Muni Suvrat Swami Jain vs. Arun Nathuram Gaikwad AIR 2007 SC 38. Thus, the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme court makes it abundantly clear that mere departure from the authorised plan or putting up the construction without sanction does not ipso facto justify demolition of the structure and under such circumstances the owner may seek regularization, if such regularization is permissible.
26. I, therefore, hold that the appellate tribunal has rightly set aside the rejection order dated 07.07.2015 and directed the RCT No. 08/17 Page 24 of 25 North DMC vs Smt Snehlata and Ors appellant corporation to decide the regularization application of the respondents without going into the question of sub division of plot or seeking NOC from the coowner/owner of other portion of plot.
27. In view of the discussion hereinabove, I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned order of the Appellate tribunal MCD. Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
28. The Appellate Tribunal Record be sent back alongwith copy of this order.
29. Appeal file be consigned to record room.
RAM Digitally signed by
RAM PRAKASH
PRAKASH PANDEY
Date: 2019.09.04
PANDEY 16:11:50 +0530
Announced in the open Court (R.P. Pandey)
today i.e. on 31.08.2019 District & Sessions Judge (North) Rohini Courts, Delhi RCT No. 08/17 Page 25 of 25 North DMC vs Smt Snehlata and Ors