Om Prakash Sharma v. Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board

2. During the pendency of the writ petition, a survey of the aforesaid premises was conducted by the respondent on 03.10.2011 and it was reported that the property in question had been declared dangerous as per the notice dated 12.07.1984 and as per the policy guidelines the dangerous katras were not to be repaired/structurally improved and were liable to be cleared. It was further stated in the report that the wooden beams at the support had started giving way and the support mechanism might fall at any point of time. The estimated cost required for the repair in the portion of the appellant was stated to be about 50,000/-. It was also reported that during the said inspection one Ram Babu informed that Om Prakash was not living in the premises in question for the last about 12 years.

3. The learned Single Judge, vide impugned order dated 13.01.2012 rejected the contention of the appellant with regard to the aforesaid property being dangerous on the ground that he had continued to occupy the said premises for almost three decades after issue of the notice dated 12.07.1984 and no untoward incident had happened during this period. It was also observed by the learned Single Judge that the appellant/petitioner was a defaulter who had not bothered to deposit a paltry license fee of Rs.6/- per month for a number of years. The learned Single Judge however, deemed it appropriate to direct the respondent to renovate the said premises by carrying out necessary repairs after giving reasonable time to the petitioner/appellant to make alternative arrangement and vacate the said premises. As regards the prayer made by the petitioner/appellant with respect to unauthorized construction in the adjacent properties, it was directed that the respondent would bring the said unauthorized construction to the notice of the MCD for taking necessary steps for its removal as per law.

4. This is not the case of the respondent that the property occupied by the petitioner/appellant is not dangerous. The aforesaid property was declared dangerous way back on 12.07.1984 and it was clearly stated in the letter sent to late Sh. Hub Lal that being dangerous, the property could fall down at any time. He was also warned that if he did not vacate the property immediately, he would be liable in case of nay loss resulting from such an incident taking place. This is not the case of the respondent that any repair to the aforesaid premises was carried out by it after 12.07.1984. The mother of the appellant as well as the appellant have been writing to the respondent to either get the aforesaid premises repaired or allot an alternative accommodation to them. The respondent neither carried out repairs in the aforesaid property nor did it allot any alternative accommodation to the appellant. It is stated in the report dated 03.10.2011, prepared after carrying out inspection of the premises in question on 01.10.2011 that the estimated cost for repair of the portion occupied by the appellant would be to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. This clearly shows that the aforesaid premises is not in a habitable condition and needs extensive repairs. Therefore, it cannot be accepted that the aforesaid property is no more a dangerous property. In any case, the notice dated 12.07.1984 declaring the said property to be dangerous has not been withdrawn at any point of time and the policy of the respondent as stated in the report dated 03.10.2011 is not to repair such premises but to altogether clear/demolish them.

5. As noted earlier, way back on 12.07.1984 the respondent had asked late Sh. Hub Lal to submit documents mentioned in the said communication if he wanted allotment of an alternative accommodation in lieu of the premises occupied by him. Thus, not only had the respondent declared the aforesaid premises to be dangerous, it was also willing to consider the allotment of an alternative accommodation to the predecessor in interest of the appellant. We see no good reason for the respondent not making an alternative allotment to the appellant as per its policy, on account of the premises occupied by him having been declared dangerous. As regards the non-payment of license fee, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that without issue of demand notice, it is not permissible to deposit the license fees and no demand notice was issued by the respondent. This position was not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent.

6. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant is not residing in the premises in question. This information according to the learned counsel was given to them by one Sh. Ram Babu at the time of said inspection on 01.10.2011. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, strongly refuted the averments and claimed that the petitioner/appellant continues to reside in the premises in question. The question as to whether the petitioner/appellant continues to reside in the premises in question or not, is a question of fact which cannot be gone into in these proceedings, and therefore, we refrain from taking any view on this submission of the learned counsel for the respondent.

7. For the reasons stated hereinabove we set aside the impugned order dated 13.01.2012 and direct the respondent to consider the request of the petitioner/appellant for allotment of an alternative accommodation in lieu of the premises number 68/1, as per its policy. An appropriate decision in this regard shall be taken and communicated to the petitioner/appellant within three months.

CHIEF JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, J JANUARY 29, 2013/‘raj’