Heena Kausar v. MCD

Delhi High Court · 15 Sep 2025 · 2025:DHC:8139
Mini Pushkarna
W.P.(C) 10834/2024 & W.P.(C) 2964/2025
2025:DHC:8139
property appeal_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court upheld the MCD's authority to demolish only declared dangerous portions of a building while preserving tenants' occupation rights in safe areas and allowing further inspection for repairs or demolition.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 10834/2024 & W.P.(C) 2964/2025
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 15th September, 2025
W.P.(C) 10834/2024
HEENA KAUSAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Javed Ahmad, Ms. Aakriti Aditya and Mr. Adnan Khan, Advs.
VERSUS
MCD AND OTHERS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Himanshu Gupta and Mr. Yug Pratik, Advs. for R-5 to 15
Mr. Tushar Sannu, SC
WITH
Mr. Vishal Ji, Adv. for MCD
W.P.(C) 2964/2025 & CM APPL. 14043/2025
MEENU GANDHI & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Himanshu Gupta and Mr. Yug Pratik, Advs.
VERSUS
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Javed Ahmad, Ms. Aakriti Aditya and Mr. Adnan Khan, Advs.
Ms. Ritu Reniwal, SPC for R-5 Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Adv. for MCD
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL):
JUDGMENT

1. W.P.(C) 10834/2024 has been filed seeking directions to demolish the dangerous and dilapidated property/building bearing No. 1679, measuring 128 Sq. Yards situated at Kucha Dakhni Rai, Netaji Subhash Marg, Darya Ganj, Delhi-110002.

2. Per contra, W.P.(C) 2964/2025 has been filed by the tenants of the ground floor and mezzanine floor of the property in question, with prayer for quashing the orders dated 11th February, 2025 passed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”) under Sections 348 and 349 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (“DMC Act”), in respect to ground floor and mezzanine floor of the said property, i.e., No. 1679, Measuring 128 Sq. Yards situated at Kucha Dakhni Rai, Netaji Subhash Marg, Darya Ganj, Delhi.

3. While it is the case of the petitioner in W.P.(C) 10834/2024, that the whole property in question is dangerous, on the other hand, learned counsel appearing for MCD submits that only front portion of the first floor and some portion of the second floor of the building are dangerous, which have been declared so by the MCD.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the MCD further submits that the ground floor and mezzanine floor of the property are not dangerous.

5. Attention of this Court is drawn to the orders dated 11th February, 2025, issued by the Office of the Executive Engineer (M)-II, City SP Zone, MCD, which are reproduced as under:

6. By referring to the aforesaid orders, learned counsel appearing for the MCD submits that the dangerous portions in the building in question have been shown in the rough site plan as the shaded portions, which clearly show that only part of first floor and second floor have been declared as dangerous by the MCD, and not the ground floor and mezzanine floor.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the MCD submits that they shall take action for removal of the dangerous portions of the building, as shown in the aforesaid orders.

8. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) 2964/2025, i.e., who are the tenants of the ground floor and mezzanine floor of the property, submit that the said tenants shall cooperate with the MCD in taking any action for removal of dangerous portions of the building.

9. Accordingly, the MCD is directed to remove the dangerous portions of the building in question, in terms of the orders dated 11th February, 2025, issued by the Office of the Executive Engineer (M)-II, City SP Zone, MCD.

10. The tenants on the ground floor and mezzanine floor are directed to cooperate with the MCD, and shall comply with any directions, as issued by the MCD, for the purposes of taking action against the dangerous portions of the building in question.

11. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(C) 2964/2025 submits that since the petitioners are tenants, residing on the ground floor and mezzanine floor of the property in question, their occupation of the portions occupied by them be preserved.

12. Needless to state, the present is not an eviction petition. Thus, in case the petitioners in W.P.(C) 2964/2025, who are the tenants of the ground floor and mezzanine floor of the property, vacate the premises for the purposes of demolition of the dangerous portions of the building by the MCD, after the requisite action has been taken by the MCD, the said tenants can re-occupy the portions already occupied by them before such action of the MCD.

13. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) 10834/2024 submits that though the MCD states that only parts of the of first and second floors are in dangerous and dilapidated condition, however, he submits that other portions of the building are also in a dangerous and dilapidated condition.

14. Accordingly, the MCD is at liberty to inspect the whole property and assess as to whether other portions of the building are also in dangerous and dilapidated condition. In case, certain repair work is required with regard thereto, the MCD shall issue directions with respect to carrying out the required repair work. However, in case, the building cannot be restored even with repair work, requisite action shall be taken by the MCD, in accordance with law.

15. Needless to state, the cost for demolition of any dangerous portion of the building, shall be borne by the respective occupants of the building.

4,500 characters total

16. With the aforesaid directions, the present petitions, along with the pending applications, stand disposed of. MINI PUSHKARNA, J SEPTEMBER 15, 2025