Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(4) The respondents' stand is that the allotment of the space for storage has been made on "as is where is" basis. It was also stipulated in the tender application form the applicant should first examine the premises/space available at site before submitting the tender. The committee as such is not bound to rectify the defects.

(5) The petitioner is engaged in the business of sale, purchase and manufacture of all sorts of electronic items for the storage of which he offered the maximum license fee for the space. He also completed the formalities of deposit of security amount equal to four months' license fee as .also twomonths' license fee in advance in good faith. On inspection of the premises,it was discovered that there was great amount of humidity all around due to seepage where the electronic goods cannot be stored. In the hope that the respondent Committee will make the premises worthwhile for storage of electronic items, the petitioner applied for the issuance of no objection certificate from the Chief Fire Officer, M.C.D. as per the terms and conditions of the tender. The office of the Chief Fire Officer refused to issue no objection certificate as the premises required structural changes to provide for a second fire escape, approach road, sprinklers system, etc. besides otherrequirements. In face of these two problems, the petitioner requested the respondent Committee to remove the defects so that he is in a position to make use of the premises. The respondents denied their responsibility and took the stand the it was for the petitioner to make the space habitable at his own costs.

(12) As the situation was getting out of control inasmuch as the petitioner declined to occupy the space unless it is set right and the respondent-Committee was insisting that the removal of defects, if any, is the, responsibility of the petitioner, a joint inspection of the premises was held on 6/11/1987. The Superintending Engineer then required the Executive Engineer (C-l) to immediately attend to the repairs of seepage in his letter of the same date (P-39). He observed :- "THE basement floor near Palika Parking licensed to Sh. RajendraPrasad Jain was inspected with you on Friday 6.11.87 on receipt of number of complaints from the licensee for persistence of the sub-soil water seepage in the basement due to which be is not able to use the godown. It was observed that there was regular see page along the brick wall and minor seepage around columns. It appeared that repair work was done earlier around the columns which had reduced the seepage but sings of seepage were still visible.The trench made along the brick wall in the floor was full of sub-soil water.As this work was executed through M/s N.B.C.C. a Govt. of India Undertaking on actual cost plus over beads and the waterproofing was got done by them through a specialised agency who bad submitted a guarantee of 10 years against any seepage etc. You are advised to issue necessary notice to M/s N.B.C.C. to have these page attended without any delay. The specialised firm will have to attend to the seepage at their own cost as the seepage has appeared even in a period of less than I year of its completion.The necessary action for repairs to the seepage may be taken on top priority as firm to whom the basement has been licensed has been representing time and again at various levels on this account and have been putting the entire blame on the Civil Engineering Department for not getting seepage attended. The various representations submitted by the Licensee for provision of fire protection works in the premises as per the requirement of Chief Fire Officer Delhi as per unified Bldg, bye-laws 1983 be also put up urgently."

(13) The sum total of the correspondence exchanged between the parties and the admissions of the officers of the respondent committee at various stages leave no doubt in my mind that it was the responsibility of the respondent-committee to make the premises workable by removing the two main defects.

(14) This view finds support from the report of the Sub Committee constituted by the Administrator, N.D.M.C. to decide the future course of action in respect of the godown space allotted to the petitioner. The meeting of this Committee was held on 26/05/1988 under the Chairmanship of Shri J.S. Mehrotra, Financial Adviser. The other members of the Committee were Additional Chief Engineer (Electrical), Chief Architect. Superintending Engineer (Civil), Director (Estate), the Deputy Law Officer and the Assistant Director (Estate). The Sub Committee thoroughly considered the matter with the background of the representations of the petitioner. The following conclusions were drawn:- "THE first important point which he has been raising relates to seepage in the premises allotted to him. The SuperintendingEngineer informed the Committee that the repairs are needed to be done but since Shri R.P. Jain has not been allowing the staff of the Civil Engineering Department entry, for carrying out repairs on one ground or the other, the work could not be carried out. IfN.D M.C. agrees for carrying out repairs to check seepage, etc it is very essential that the premises should be handed over by Shri R.P.Jain to N D.M.C. He further explains that the repair work may take around one month.The second point which has been raised by Shri R.P. Jain relates to provision of a fire fighting arrangement. The Committee discussed all aspects in detail. C.A. and the Superintending Engineer (C) pointed out that there are two categories of fire safety measures. The first category relates to provisions for fire escape, exhaust and sprinklers.These measures relate with the construction and these are to be carried out by N.D. M.C. The second category of fire safety device relates to the fire extinguishers and such other minor items for which expenditure should be incurred by the allottee."

(15) The above said recommendations finally set at rest the controversy inasmuch as the respondent committee took upon itself to remove the defects of seepage and make structural changes to provide fire escape, exhaust and sprinklers.

(16) In their counter before this court, the respondents persisted that as per the terms of the tender notice, is was the duty of petitioner to get the defects removed, if any and make it useable and continue to pay the licensefee. Learned counsel emphasised that the defects, if any. have been attended to and the premises are fit for occupation. The petitioner denied the correctness of this assertion. In order to know the exact position of the basement,P.K. Bahri, J. vide order dated 309 88. directed the Chief Architect of the respondent Committee to inspect the premises and submit a report about the condition of the space as to whether the same is fit for occupation and if not what improvements or repairs are required to be done to make it fit foroccupation. In compliance with this direction, Shri S.D. Satpute, Chief Architect inspected the basement premises at Palika Parking shopping center on 18/10/1988 in the presence of the petitioner. Shri G.S. Chaturvedi,Director Estate, Shri V.P. Sangal, Superintending Engineer (Civil) and Shri Arun Kumar, Manager, Palika Parking, In his report dated 21/10/1988, be pointed out that the premises have not been used for lone time and there is presence of water all over the floor of the basement to a depth of about 50 mm (2 inches) He also pointed out that for the purposes of ventilation, only one exhaust fan has been provided whereas the position of the second exhaust fan has been blocked with ply-board for security reasons.He also noticed that no fire safety/protection arrangements have beenprovided. In his opinion, as per the present condition, the basement cannot be used and the premises are required to be properly treated with suitable water proofing to overcome the problem of seepage of sub soil water, including water proofing treatment for walls and roofs The ventilation also requiresimprovement. The requirement of fire safety be provided so that THE basement could be used without any risk damage to the stored goods. He also noticed that the petitioner has erected few cabins with limber partitions but the same appear to have been abandoned half way. Along with thisreport, he also filed the photographs of the premises.