Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

QUESTIONNo.3 : Who is entitled to notice u/s 343 and 344 of Dmc Act ?

(37) Whether a tenant or any person other than the owner is entitled to a notice under Section 343/344 of the Dmc Act ?

(38) The provisions contained in Sections 343 to 347(B) and 347(E) of The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 are relevant.

(39) Under Section 344, if any unauthorised construction commences, the Commissioner may require 'the person at whose instance the building or the work has been commenced or is being carried on' to stop the same forthwith.

(41) Section 345-A empowers the Commissioner to order sealing of any erection or work before ordering demolition under Section 343 or stoppage of work under Section 343 or Section 344.

(42) An order of stoppage under Section 344 and an order of sealing under Section 345A are both appealable under Section 347B, the right of appeal having been vested in 'any person aggrieved' by the orders.

(43) Section 347E provides that no .Court shall entertain any suit, application or other proceedings in respect of any order or notice appealable under Section 343 or Section 347B and no such order or notice shall be called in question otherwise than by preferring an appeal.

(53) It is clear that the plaintiff in suit No. 2581/94 being a tenant and the plaintiff in suit No. 106/95 being a builder, none was entitled to a notice under sections 343/344 of Dmc Act.

QUESTIONNo3A : Whether the notice under Section 343/344 is invalid for not having been issued by the Commissioner.

(54) Though Sections 343/344 of the Dmc Act authorise the Commissioner to take an action under the said provision, notice in the case at hand has been signed by the Zonal Engineer buildings, South Zone. Section 491 of the Act permits the powers of the Commissioner being delegated for exercise and performance by any municipal officer or other municipal employee of the Corporation.

(56) Notice dated 21.3.94 and the subsequent notice dated 19.12.1994 under Section 344(l)/343, and communication dated 29.3.94 of order of demolition under Section 343 are both signed by Zonal Engineer (Buildings). The notice mentions the signatory having been empowered by the Commissioner u/s 491. The objection as to notice not having been issued by commissioner himself and hence being invalid fails.

QUESTIONNo.4 : Whether the plaintiffs have locus standi in filing civil suits ?

(57) The question has two facets: whether the plaintiffs in the two suits have locus standi and whether the civil suits would at all lie (58) In Shiv Kumar Chadha vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi their Lordships have very clearly laid down the law in the following terms : "IN spite of the bar prescribed under sub- section (4) and (5) of Section 343 and Section 347-E of the Corporation Act over the power of the courts, under certain special circumstances the court can examine the dispute falls with in the ambit of the Act " "IN some special cases where "jurisdictional error" on the part of the Corporation is established, a suit shall be maintainable.Accordingly: