Delhi District Court
Chand Singh vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 18 April, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. PREM KUMAR BARTHWAL
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NORTH DISTRICT : ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
CNR No. DLNT01-018743-2024
MCD Appeal No. 1/2025
Sh. Chand Singh
S/o Late Sh. Rati Ram
R/o H. No. 1669A, Khasra No. 894
(New No. 115), Panna Bhartaan,
Alipur, Delhi-110036 ...Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through Its Commissioner
17th Floor, Civic Centre,
Dr. S.P.M. Marg, Minto Road,
New Delhi ...Respondent
Date of institution : 03.01.2025
Date of arguments : 09.04.2026
Date of Judgment : 18.04.2026
JUDGMENT :
1. By this judgment, I shall dispose of the appeal u/s 347(D) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as "the DMC Act") assailing the order dated 16.10.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order) passed by Sh. Abhilash Malhotra, Ld. P.O. Appellate Tribunal, MCD, Delhi in case No. A No. 714/2024 titled 'Chand Singh Vs. MCD & Ors', whereby appellant's application seeking interim stay was dismissed. Digitally signed by Prem Prem Kumar
2. An application for condonation of delay has been filed Kumar barthwal barthwal Date:
2026.04.18 16:46:59 +0530 MCD Appeal No. 1/2025 Chand Singh Vs. MCD Page 1 of 9 along with instant appeal to condone delay of 36 days in filing the present appeal. In the case of Santosh & Ors. Vs. Shri Tek Chand, 134 (2006) DLT 332, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that, "rules of procedure are handmaiden to the end of justice and should not be permitted to effect substantial justice." Keeping in view the fact that the matter ought to be decided on merits and not on technical ground, the circumstances, which have been shown, need to be considered leniently. Taking a liberal view, and in the larger interest of justice, the application for condonation of delay is allowed, and the delay in filing of the instant appeal is condoned.
3. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Appellate Tribunal, MCD, the appellants filed the present appeal on the grounds that the impugned order dated 16.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Appellate Tribunal, MCD is unsustainable as there is no oral, documentary, or cogent evidence on record to conclude that the construction at the ground floor of the property is commercial in nature; that the property is purely residential; that the appellant, being the lawful owner in settled possession of the property through his predecessors since long time has every legal right, title, and interest to enjoy and use the property without hindrance or interference; that the appellant, a senior citizen from an agricultural background, was not conversant with MCD building bye-laws; that the old structure was dangerous to life and safety, Prem Kumar barthwal hence, the appellant repaired/reconstructed the ground floor room Digitally signed by Prem Kumar barthwal Date: 2026.04.18 solely to meet the bona fide residential needs of his family. 16:47:04 +0530 MCD Appeal No. 1/2025 Chand Singh Vs. MCD Page 2 of 9
4. The basic question which has arisen in the present case is in regard to maintainability of the appeal against the interim orders vide which the stay application has been dismissed. Attention of Ld. Counsel was also drawn to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Senjil Gupta Vs. North Delhi Municipal Corporation (2019) 257 DLT 674 qua maintainability of appeal under section 347D against orders passed on interim applications.
5. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellants has vehemently argued that Section 347-D of DMC Act itself provides for appeal against the orders under Section 343 of DMC Act and that revision/appeal are maintainable even against the intermediatory orders. It is further contended that observations of the Hon'ble High Court in a reference answered in Senjil Gupta (supra) is in respect of the interim application Order I Rule 10 CPC and not in regard to an order made under S. 343 of the Act. It is submitted that while any order made on any miscellaneous application under Code of Civil Procedure may not be amenable to appeal under S.347-D of the Act but by no Rule of interpretation can it be so held for the orders made under the Act itself. It is thus vehemently argued that the present appeal is maintainable and the judgment in Senjil Gupta (supra) does not bar the appeal before this court against the interim orders.
6. Per contra, Learned counsel on behalf of the respondent has countered the contentions of the appellant's counsel by Digitally signed by referring the judgment of Senjil Gupta (supra) wherein it is Prem Kumar Prem Kumar barthwal Date:
barthwal 2026.04.18 16:47:09 clearly observed that only those orders made under Section 343 +0530 MCD Appeal No. 1/2025 Chand Singh Vs. MCD Page 3 of 9 or 347-D which is "confirming, modifying, annulling" an order made or notice issued under this Act shall be maintainable. Clearly, the orders on application for interim stay are not subject to appellate jurisdiction under Section 347D of the Act.
7. I have heard the arguments on the point of maintainability of the present appeal against the order of Ld. ATMCD and have also perused the record. My observations are as under:-
8. The appellant has challenged the order vide which the application for grant of interim stay of impugned order of demolition has been dismissed.
9. The issue which arises for consideration is whether the appeal under Section 347-D of the Act is maintainable against the impugned ad interim order declining to grant stay of the demolition when the appeal is still pending before the Appellate Tribunal.
10. The aspect of maintainability of appeal against interim order was considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Senjil Gupta (Supra) where the reference made by the learned District and Sessions Judge was answered. The questions of law, read as under:
"1. Whether the Administrator (here in this case the District and Sessions Judge (Hqs.) Tis Hazari Court, Delhi) has the power to hear appeals against order of the Appellate Tribunal, Municipal Corporation of Delhi (ATMCD) restricted only to the orders of the Appellate Tribunal by Prem which the orders made or notices issued under the Delhi Kumar barthwal Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 have been either Digitally signed confirmed or modified or annulled as provided under by Prem Kumar barthwal Section 347D of the Delhi Municipal Act, 1957? Or Date: 2026.04.18 16:47:14 +0530 MCD Appeal No. 1/2025 Chand Singh Vs. MCD Page 4 of 9
2. Whether the Administrator (here in this case the District and Sessions Judge (Hqs.) Tis Hazari Court), Delhi is empowered to hear appeals as a regular Appellate Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against all orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal, Municipal Corporation of Delhi in the appeals pending before the said Tribunal passed during the course of hearing, the appeals including the impugned order by which the application under Order XII Rule 10 read with Order I Rule 10 CPC filed by the applicant / appellant was dismissed, as observed by this court in W.P.(C) 9244/2015 decided on September 14, 2016."
11. Section 347-D reads as under:
(1) An appeal shall lie to the Administrator against an order of the Appellate Tribunal, made in an appeal under Section 343 or Section 347B, confirming, modifying or annulling an order made or notice issued under this Act.
(2) The provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 347B and section 347C and the rules made thereunder, shall, so far as may be, apply to the filing and disposal of an appeal under this Section as they apply to the filing and disposal of an appeal under those sections.
(3) An order of the Administrator on an appeal under this section, and subject only to such order, an order of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 347B, and subject to such orders of the Administrator or an Appellate Tribunal, an order or notice referred to in sub-section (1) of that section, shall be final."
12. Section 343 of the Act provides for Order of Demolition and Stoppage of Buildings and Works in certain cases and appeals. Sub Rule (1) empowers the Commissioner to make demolition orders or stoppage of buildings and works in certain cases. Sub Clause (2) provides that an appeal may be preferred against the order of demolition of the erection of works to which it relates, of the Commissioner made under Sub Section (1) to the Digitally signed by Prem Prem Appellate Tribunal. Sub Clause (3) further provides that in an Kumar Kumar barthwal barthwal Date:
2026.04.18 16:47:18 appeal preferred before the Appellate Tribunal under Sub Section +0530 MCD Appeal No. 1/2025 Chand Singh Vs. MCD Page 5 of 9 (2), the Appellate Tribunal may stay the enforcement of that order on such terms if any and for such period as it may think fit.
Section 343 (3) therefore specifically empower the Appellate Tribunal to make interim orders as may be deemed appropriate till the final disposal of the appeal. However, right to file appeal against any order so made shall be strictly governed by S.347-D of the Act.
13. The reference question No.1 was answered thus in Senjil (Supra) after referring to the above mentioned provisions.
"Further, I am of the view that sub section 1 of Section 347D has to be read as a whole to know the correct purport / intention of the provision. The words "An appeal shall lie to the Administrator (District & Sessions Judge) against an order of the Appellate Tribunal made in appeal under Section 343 or Section 347B" are followed by the words "confirming, modifying or annulling an order made or notice issued under this Act". So, it necessary follows, it is that order which is passed by the Appellate Tribunal, in an appeal under Section 343 or 347B, confirming, modifying or annulling the order made or notice issued under the Act, which can be subject matter of appeal before the District & Sessions Judge. In the absence of any provision, the District and Sessions Judge (Hqs.) cannot bestow upon himself a power which is not vested in him by a Statute. It is also a settled position of law that any act liable to be done in a particular matter has to be done in that matter only and not otherwise. In the absence of any appellate power vested with District & Sessions Judge (HQs) by the Act, no appeal shall lie. In this regard, I may refer to the following observation of the Supreme Court in AIR 1979 SC 1250 Munshi Ram and Ors. v. Municipal Committee Chheharta."
14. Hon'ble High Court thus, observed that Clause (1) of Section 347-D provides that an appeal against the order of the Appellate Tribunal made under Section 343 or 347-B which is "confirming, modifying, annulling an order made or notice Digitally signed by Prem Prem Kumar Kumar barthwal issued under this Act shall be maintainable" . Even though barthwal Date:
2026.04.18 16:47:23 +0530 MCD Appeal No. 1/2025 Chand Singh Vs. MCD Page 6 of 9 Section 343 (3) specifically empowers the Appellate Tribunal to make interim orders of grant to stay till the disposal of appeal but Section 347-D only talks of such orders of the Appellate Tribunal which are confirming, modifying or annulling; it does not provide for any appeal against any interim orders that may be made by the Appellate Tribunal. Had the legislature intended any appeal to be maintainable against the interim orders that may be made by the Appellate Tribunal there was nothing to prevent the legislature from specifically providing for an appeal against the interim orders. The words of a statute thus, have to be interpreted according to their ordinary meaning and cannot be stretched to include what has not been specifically provided for. In the absence of any provision for appeal against interim orders the court cannot assume the powers. A reference was also made to Satheedevi vs. Prasanna (2010) 5 SCC 622 wherein the Apex Court had observed that the words used in the material provisions of the statute must be interpreted in their plain grammatical meaning and it is only when such words are capable of two constructions that the question of giving effect to the policy or object of the Act can legitimately arise. It was further observed that the other important rule of interpretation is that the Court cannot rewrite, recast or re-frame the legislation because it has no power to do so.
15. Ld. Counsel for the appellant had vehemently argued that the above observations were limited to the orders made on miscellaneous applications under Code of Civil Procedure and Prem Kumar barthwal not to the orders made under the Act. In this regard the reference Digitally signed by Prem Kumar barthwal Date: 2026.04.18 question No.2 was framed which was answered thus: 16:47:28 +0530 MCD Appeal No. 1/2025 Chand Singh Vs. MCD Page 7 of 9 "A perusal of Section 343 and Section 347B would reveal that in so far as an order under Section 343 is concerned, the same is relatable to an order of demolition and stoppage of buildings and works in certain cases. Similarly, Section 347B relates to certain orders made or notice issued under the Act. The same are relatable to Sections 313, 314, 315(1), 317(2), Sections 334, 336, 337 and 338 etc. Nowhere the sections refer to an order passed in an application filed under Order XXII Rules 10 and / or Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC. So, it necessarily follows that in the absence of the said provisions of CPC being referred to either in Section 343 or in Section 347B, an appeal before the District and Sessions Judge against an order dated June 5, 2015, which is an order under Order XXII Rule 10 read Section Order 1 Rule 10 CPC shall not lie. In other words the appeal to the District and Sessions Judge under Section 347D of the Act encompasses in itself only orders passed under two provisions of the Act, i.e., Sections 343 and 347B and not orders passed under Order XXII Rule 10 read with Order I Rule 10 CPC or any interlocutory order. No order in an application / petition other than under Sections 343 or 347B can be a subject matter of an appeal before the appellate authority, i.e., District and Sessions Judge (Hqs.) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
16. From the Reference answered in Senjil Gupta (Supra), it is abundantly clear that the Appeal under Section 347-D of the Act is maintainable only against those orders under Section 343 of the Act confirming, annulling or modifying an order or notice given under the Act. The impugned order is only an interim order and that too whereby the Ld. Appellate Tribunal MCD has declined to give interim protection till the matter is heard on merits. S.343 (3) only talks about grant of stay on terms till disposal of Appeal and not about refusal to grant stay. It is not an order confirming, modifying or annulling the order/notice of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Significantly S.343(1) deals Digitally signed by Prem Prem Kumar Kumar barthwal with demolition orders and any order made under this Section barthwal Date:
2026.04.18 16:47:32 +0530 MCD Appeal No. 1/2025 Chand Singh Vs. MCD Page 8 of 9 would clearly be a subject matter of Appeal but not the interim orders that may be made under S.343(3) or any other interim order.
17. In view of above, the present appeal is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the Ld. Appellate Tribunal, MCD, for information.
18. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed Prem by Prem Kumar
Kumar barthwal
Announced in the open court barthwal
Date: 2026.04.18
16:47:37 +0530
today i.e. 18th April, 2026
(Prem Kumar Barthwal)
Principal District & Sessions Judge
North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi
MCD Appeal No. 1/2025
Chand Singh Vs. MCD Page 9 of 9