Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(e) Ground floor has also been converted into a regular market by providing various shops/offices against permissible and sanctioned use for residential purposes.

4. Admittedly, defendant-MCD has not regularised unauthorised construction or non-compoundable deviations and rejected the application of the plaintiff on account of the deviations not falling within the purview of the regulation policy and show cause notices issued under Sections 343/344 of the Act followed by demolition order.

5. In the civil suit No. 201/90 filed by the plaintiff before the subordinate civil court, the plaintiff has not only denied having made any unauthorised construction and deviations against the sanctioned building plan it has also denied receipt of show cause notice under Sections 343/344 of the DMC Act. In order to obviate the controversy as to the non-receipt of notice, the defendant filed a fresh show cause notice in the court and prayed for service of the same on the plaintiff before the Court itself. The Civil Court adjourned the said suit to 19.11.1990 for service of fresh show cause notice on the plaintiff. The plaintiff avoided to receive the notice on various occasions i.e. on 23.11.1990, 28.11.1990 and 30.1.1990, on one pretext or the other and ultimately on 30.11.1990, the Court rejected the request of the plaintiff for grant of further adjournment and vacated the stay orders dated 12.4.1990 and 20.4.1990.

I, Vijay Kadiyan AE(B) appointed and authorised by Delhi Municipal Corporation under Section 461, under Section 344(1) will stop construction immediately. You are informed that if the construction work is not stopped on receipt of this order then action will be taken against you under the above mention section without giving you any further information under Section 344(2) and 344(4). Deviation against sanctioned building plans, excess coverage at basement, GF, FF, SF & TF under construction and servant room at FF infringement in set back portion at each floor.
Now, therefore, I Vijay Dev, Deputy Commissioner, MCD, South Zone in exercise of the powers vested in me under Section 345A read with Section 491 of the DMC Act and the rules made there under, hereby call upon by this show cause notice, owner/builder to show cause within three days from the receipt of this notice as to why the aforesaid premises be not sealed.
Issued under my hand and seal on the 24th day of May, 2000.
Sd/- (Vijay Dev)            Deputy Commissioner, South Zone"

19. It is contended by Mr. R.D. Jolly, learned counsel for the defendant-MCD that after declaration of Amnesty Scheme under the relaxed BBL for regularizing the excess coverage permissible within law, the owner/builder moved an application dated 29.4.99 requesting therein to regularise the excess coverage as per the relaxed BBL and was asked to comply with the instructions as contained in the notice No. 969/UPC/EE (B)/SZ/99 dated 24.5.1999. The requisite formalities were completed in part and the matter was further processed as per the guidelines and as per the available record pertaining to the property in question maintained by the MCD, the plaintiff has changed the user of the entire building from residential to commercial besides having raised huge unauthorised constructions against which the revocation proceedings Under Section 338 of the DMC Act, 1957 have also been contemplated and besides this, the plaintiff has carried out various internal deviation in violation of the building bye-laws at sanctioned floors/revoked floors which cannot be regularized. Moreover, as per the conditions for consideration of the applications for regularisation the non-compoundable deviations are required to be first demolished and only thereafter, the application for regularisation of the unauthorised constructions can be considered.

24. As far as the allegations of converting residential premises into commercial premises is concerned, an independent action may be initiated by the defendant which shall be independent of the compounding of the compoundable deviations as permissible under the Amnesty Scheme or the building bye-laws.

25. Since the plaintiff has denied having received show cause notice of either demolition or sealing though his conduct shows that he has been not only avoiding but evading the service of such notices even in the court, yet this defense may be taken by the plaintiff before the MCD Tribunal. The defendant shall not take any action pursuant to those notices for one month from today so as to allow the plaintiff to seek an appropriate remedy before the appropriate forum and also to ensure the service of such notices by the defendant if not served. It is hoped that the plaintiff will not adopt the same attitude as he did in the subordinate civil court. If he does so he may do it at his own peril.