Delhi High Court - Orders
Allied Motors (P) Ltd vs New Delhi Municipal Council Through Its ... on 1 October, 2020
Author: Najmi Waziri
Bench: Najmi Waziri
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C) 13839/2019 & CM APPLs 55600/2019 & 2516/2020
ALLIED MOTORS (P) LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr Kirti Uppal, Senior Advocate with
Ms Aastha Dhawan and Ms Diksha
Mathur, Advocates.
versus
NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Tushar Sannu, ASC for NDMC.
Mr Salman Khurshid, Senior
Advocate with Mr Amit Sethi, Ms
Riddhi Jad, Ms Sakshi Kotiyal and
Ms Asifa Rashid Mir, Advocates for
applicant M/s Atma Ram Properties
Pvt. Ltd.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
ORDER
% 01.10.2020 The hearing was conducted through video conferencing. CM APPL. 4263/2020 (for clarification of order dated 22.01.2020)
1. This application seeks clarification of the order dated 22.01.2020. According to the applicant - M/s Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd., it had been impleaded as a party to the present proceedings - which is why it was supplied a copy of the writ petition and has filed a reply thereto. Mr Kirti Uppal, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner, confirms that indeed the applicant was orally impleaded as a party. Perhaps erroneously it has not been so reflected in the sad order.
2. In view of the above, the applicant - M/s Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd. shall be shown as R-3. Let amended memo of parties be filed in a fortnight.
3. The application stands disposed-off accordingly. CM APPL. 24548/2020 (by M/s Atma Ram Properties Pvt. Ltd/applicant for stay)
4. Issue notice.
5. Notice is accepted by the learned counsel named above for the non- applicants.
6. Mr Tushar Sannu, the learned ASC for the New Delhi Municipal Council ('NDMC'), seeks some time to obtain instructions.
7. The applicant/R-3 impugns the permission granted to the petitioner/tenant by the NDMC, with the concurrence of the Heritage Conservation Committee ('HCC'), to carry out essential repairs in the property occupied by the tenant. With reference to the Note to Clause 2.0.1 (d) of the Unified Building Bye Laws for Delhi, 2016 ('UBBL'), as amended in 2017, the applicant-landlord/R-3, submits that the owner of the property has been made responsible for any liability due to structural flaws or other defects in the building arising from additions/alterations. Therefore, insofar as the HCC and NDMC have permitted the petitioner to carry out repairs, etc.' without the consent of or notice to the owner/R-3, they have fallen into error.
8. The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that under the existing byelaws, permission for such minor repairs is not required. He relies upon Clause 2.14 of the UBBL, which enumerated the variety of repairs permissible without the consent of the authorities.
9. However, the learned Senior Advocate for the applicant/R-3 submits that there is a specific responsibility now fixed upon the owner of a heritage building, which the suit premises is. He emphasises upon Clause 1.2 of Annexure II to the UBBL 2016, which reads thus:
"...
1.2 Responsibility of the Owners of Heritage Buildings:
It shall be the duty of the owners of heritage buildings and buildings in heritage precincts or in heritage streets to carry out regular repairs and maintenance of the buildings. The Government, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi or the Local Bodies and Authorities concerned shall not be responsible for such repair and maintenance except for the buildings owned by the Government, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi or the other local bodies..."
10. Therefore, if any untoward incident occurs and/or for all liability on account of the repairs being carried out by the petitioner, the latter shall be exclusively liable. Should notices be issued either by the NDMC or the L&DO or any other relevant authority, apropos the repairs and/or any other construction activity being carried out in the tenanted premises, it would obviously lend the landlord/R-3 the right to seek appropriate remedies against the tenant, including eviction proceedings.
11.The NDMC shall examine the matter, and specifically address the issue raised in the application apropos permission being granted to a person who is not the owner, and file its reply within two weeks.
12.Replies by the non-applicants be filed within 3 weeks from today.
13.List on 10.11.2020.
14.The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order be also forwarded to the counsels through e-mail.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J OCTOBER 01, 2020/rd