312 & 313 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.fC^ 6771/2011 & CMS No.l3645 & 13646/2011 W.P.rC^ 6772/2011 & CMS No.l3647 & 13648/2011 DES RAJ SHARMA Petitioner in WP(C) No.6771/2011 HARBHAGWAN DASS Petitioner in WP(C) No.6772/2011 Througli l^r.Rajat Aneja and l^s.Sliweta Singh, Advocates versus I^ICD&ANR. Respondents Through l^lr.Ajay Arora, Advocate with Mr.S.H.iVjujtaba, AE(W) I Division, I^S-II South Zone, MCD CORAIVI: HON'BLE |V1S. JUSTICE HI|V|A KOHLI ORDER % 15.09.2011 These matters are circulated in the second supplementary list on the basis of an urgent mentioning by the counsel for the petitioners. 1. In both the writ petitions, the petitioners inter alia seek directions to the respondents/I^CD restraining them from taking forcible possession of the two shops located on the ground floor of the premises bearing No.254-A, Hauz Rani, i^jaiviya Nagar, New Delhi, W.P.(C) Nos. 6771 & 6772/2011 Page No.l of 6 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified which are in their occupation as tenants, under the tenancy of the four sons of the deceased landlord, Sh.Deen Mohd. It is stated by the counsel for the petitioners that since the year 1984, the petitioners have remained in peaceful occupation of their respective shops on the ground floor of the subject premises. It is further stated that the rear portion of the building is under the occupation of the four sons of the deceased landlord. However, recently on 9.9.2011, when torrential rains lashed the city, the rear side of the upper floor of the subject premises suffered some cracks, on account of accumulation of water in the basement of the adjoining premises. 2. It is the contention of the petitioners that the sons of the deceased landlord having entered into a conspiracy with the officers of the respondents No.l/MCD and by projecting the entire subject premises to have become dangerous, got the aforesaid rear portion demolished on the very next day, i.e., on 10.9.2011. Apprehending that they would try and co-erce the petitioners to vacate the shops with the connivance of officers of respondent No.l/MCD, the petitioners lodged a complaint in this regard with the SHO of the area on 11.9.2011. Counsel for the petitioners states that that the present petitions have been necessitated on account of the fact that the petitioners have been threatened by the officers of the respondents W.P.(C) Nos. 6771 & 6772/2011 Page No.2 of 6 that their shops would also be demolished and further, a notice to this effect has been pasted on their shops on 14.9.2011, calling upon the petitioners to remove their articles from the shops. 3. Issue notice. Counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance copy, states that he has obtained necessary instructions from the department to the effect that on 14.9.2011, the Control Room, South Zone, MCD and the Central Control Room, MCD had received a message that the subject premises had collapsed. On reaching the r site, it was found that the room on the first floor of the front portion of the premises, above the two shops, had collapsed and one part of the RCC slab was resting on the roof of one of the shops, whereas the other part of the RCC slab was precariously hanging on a brick column. It is stated by the counsel for the respondents that there was an apprehension that the RCC Slab could further collapse at any time, endangering the safety of the shops as also that of the passerbys, Sience necessitatingissuanceof the notice dated 14.9.2011pasted at the shops of the petitioners calling upon them to remove their articles from the shops, so as to dismantle the hanging RCC slabs. 4. Counsel for the respondents states that the file of the case has been brought by the officer from the Department. He hands over the said file, wherein photographs are placed clearly showing the W.P.(C) Nos. 6771 & 6772/2011 Page No.3 of 6 dangerous position of the slabs precariously hanging over the two shops. A copy of the notings in the file and the photographs is taken on record. Counsel for the respondent however asserts that the allegation leveled by the petitioners that water had accumulated in the basement adjoining the premises of the petitioner, was not borne out from an inspection of their area. It is asserted that no basement was found existing in the immediately adjoining premises as claimed by the petitioners. 5. This Court has carefully examined the notings and the photographs placed in the file of the Department. The submission of the counsel for the respondents that it is necessary to remove the two slabs hanging over the two shops, as they may cause damage not only to the shops of the petitioners, but also to the life and limb of passerbys, is well borne out. It is clear that it is in the aforesaid context that the notice in question was issued by the respondents to the petitioners. It is further observed from a perusal of the notings contained in the file that even though a request was received by respondent No.l/MCD from the owners of the premises, i.e.(the four sons of the deceased landlord), seeking demolition of the two shops occupied by the petitioners, the said request was not acceded to for the reasons that on an inspection of the shops 10.9.2011 by the W.P.(C) Nos. 6771 & 6772/2011 Page No.4 of 6 officers of tine MCD, it was found that they were intact and did not need to be demolished. 6. Counsel for the petitioners states that if. the notice dated 14.9.2011 was issued by the respondent/I^CD only for the purpose of safeguarding the shops of the petitioners over which the RCC slabs are hanging precariously, then they have no objection to removing their goods/articles from the shops in question, to enable I^CD to remove the malba in and around the premises, as also the precariously ^ hanging slabs above their shops. He further states that that in case any damage is caused to the life and limb of the petitioners, or to the articles/wares in the shops, as also to the structure of the shops on account of the aforesaid removal action proposed to be undertaken by the respondents, then the petitioners shall not claim any compensation from any of the respondents for such damage if caused. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the r-- present petitions are disposed of with the following directions: (i) The petitioners shall remove all their goods/articles from the shops in question in the course of the day. (ii) The respondents/MCD shall take immediate steps thereafter to remove the RCC slabs hanging over the roof of the shops of the petitioner as also the malba accumulated at the site, within two days, in accordance with the rules. W.P.(C) Nos. 6771 & 6772/2011 Page No.5 of 6 (iii) After removing the slabs and the malba accumulated at the site, the respondents shall inspect the roof of the shops of the petitioners to examine if any structural damage has been caused thereto and if so, the petitioners shall be intimated for them to take remedial measures for repairs in that regard. (iv) The petitioners shall be entitled to re-enter the shops thereafter and occupy the same, as before. (v) The respondents shall also give written intimation of the orders passed today to the landlords and shall ensure that they do not obstruct the petitioners from re-entering the shops, after removal of the RCC slabs and the malba and after repairing the roof of the shops, Y if necessary. 8. The petitions are disposed of, along with the pending applications Copy of the order be given DASTI to the parties, under the signatures of the Court Master for the same to be communicated to the landlords. :r SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 mk W.P.(C) Nos. 6771 & 6772/2011 HIMA KOHLI,J Page No.6 of 6