Delhi High Court · 2025

$~ 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4711/2000, CM APPL. 7281/2000&CM APPL. 4074/2004 PABHU DAYAL .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Pavitra Kaur, Ms. Shreya Mishra, Mr. Mahboob Alam Inayati, Mr. Furkan Ali Mirza, Advs. along with petitioner in-person. versus UOI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC with Mr. Tabish Zia, Mr. Tanveer Zaki, Advs. for UOI. Mr. Tushar Sannu, Mr. Parvin Bansal, Advs. for NDMC. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT SHARMA O R D E R % 01.11.2025 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. 2. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the following prayers: - “i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other or similar writ, order or direction quashing notice dated 7.8.2000 (Annexure P-17) issued by respondents purporting to determining the lease and re-entering the premises No. 19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. ii) such other or further orders as this Hon’ble court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The predecessor of the petitioner took on lease a piece of land situated at 19, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi vide registered perpetual lease deed dated 29.08.1931. The petitioner is one of the co-owners of the said premise. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/11/2025 at 12:50:38 The co-owners of the premises entered into a collaboration agreement with M/s Kailash Nath & Associates as the co-owners were interested in developing a multi storeyed commercial complex. On an application being made by the owners of the premise, permission was granted to them vide letter dated 01.05.1986 by respondent No. 2 to construct multi-storeyed apartments. 4. Vide order dated 24.09.2001, the learned Single Judge of this Court on the oral request of the petitioner, had directed the petitioner to implead all those persons as respondents, who are allegedly misusing the premises. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an amended memo of parties dated 27.11.2001, impleading the said persons as respondent no. 3 to 21. 5. The present petition has been filed assailing the aforesaid order of re-entry dated 07.08.2000 which reads thus:- This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/11/2025 at 12:50:38 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/11/2025 at 12:50:38 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/11/2025 at 12:50:38

6. On 20.09.1996 , show cause notice was issued to the original lessees by the respondent No. 2 which reads thus: - This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/11/2025 at 12:50:38 This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/11/2025 at 12:50:38

7. Reply dated on 17.10.1996 on behalf of the lessees was sent to the respondent No. 2 wherein the following averments were made: - This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/11/2025 at 12:50:38

8. Subsequently, the communication was sent to the original lessees on behalf of respondent No. 2 on 30.12.1996, in which, it was stated that the respondent No. 2 does not recognises the flat buyers and as such, no action can be taken against them by the said respondents and thereafter, the demand to remove the breaches was reiterated. 9. In pursuance thereof as pointed out hereinbefore, the impugned order of re-entry dated 07.08.2000 was passed by the respondent No. 2. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the show cause notice issued was in violation of Section 8 of the Delhi Apartment Ownership Act, 1986 (for short “Act”). It is submitted that as per Section 8(3) of the said Act, a specific show cause notice ought to have been issued to each apartment owner for the alleged breaches as claimed by the respondent No.1. Attention of this Court has also been drawn towards Section 8 of the Delhi Apartment Ownership Act, 1986 which reads as under: - “8. Right of re-entry.— (1) Where any land is given on lease by a person (hereafter in this section referred to as the lessor) to another person (hereafter in this section referred to as the lessee, which term shall include a person in whose favour a sub-lease of such land has been granted), and any multi-storeyed 7 building has been constructed on such lease-hold land by the lessee or by any other person authorised by him or claiming through him, such lessee shall grant in respect of the land as many sub-leases as there are apartments in such multi-storeyed building and shall execute separate deeds of sub-lease in respect of such land in favour of each apartment owner,— This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/11/2025 at 12:50:38 (a) in the case of a multi-storeyed building constructed before the commencement of this Act, within three months from such commencement, or (b) in the case of a multi-storeyed building constructed after the commencement of this Act, within three months from the date on which the possession of any apartment in such multi-storeyed building is delivered to him: Provident that no sub-lease in respect of any land shall be granted except on the same terms and conditions on which the lease in respect of the land has been granted by the lessor and no additional terms and conditions shall be imposed by the lessee except with the previous approval of the lessor. (2) Where the lessee has any reason to suspect that there had been any breach of the terms and conditions of the sub-lease referred to in sub-section (1), he may himself inspect the land on which the multi-storeyed building containing the concerned apartment has been constructed, or may authorise one or more persons to inspect such land and make a report as to whether there had been any breach of the terms and conditions of any sub-lease in respect of such land and, if so, the nature and extent of such breach, and for this purpose, it shall be lawful for the lessee or any person authorised by him to enter into, and to be in, the land in relation to which such breach has been or is suspected to have been committed. (3) Where the lessee or any person authorised by him makes an inspection of the land referred to in sub-section (1), he shall record in writing his findings on such inspection [a true copy of which shall be furnished to the apartment owner by whom such breach of the terms and conditions of sub-lease in respect of the land appurtenant to the apartment owned by him has been committed (hereinafter referred to as the defaulting apartment owner)] and where such findings indicate that there has been any breach of the terms and conditions of the sub-lease in respect of such land, the lessee may, by a notice in writing, require the defaulting apartment owner to refrain from committing any breach of the terms and conditions of the sub-lease in respect of such land, or to pay in lieu thereof such composition fees as may be specified in the notice in accordance with such scales of composition fees as may be prescribed.” (emphasis supplied) This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/11/2025 at 12:50:38

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relies upon judgment dated 28.05.2010 of learned Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 1959/2007 and on an order dated 13.07.2012 passed in said writ petition to submit that all issues relating to the multi-storeyed buildings will be governed by the said Act. 12. It is further submitted that even as per the preamble of the Act it can be seen that the provisions of said Act are applicable to the multi-storeyed building. Attention of this Court has further been drawn towards the preamble of the said Act which reads as under: - “An Act to provide for the ownership of an individual apartment in a multi-storeyed building and of an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities appurtenant to such apartment and to make such apartment and interest heritable and transferable and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Whereas with a view to securing that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as to subserve the common good, it is expedient to provide for the ownership of an individual apartment in multi-storeyed building and of an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities appurtenant to such apartment and interest heritable and transferable and to provide for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.” (emphasis supplied) 13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that no show cause notice was issued to the apartment owners as respondent No. 2 recognised the lessees as personally responsible for any of alleged breaches in the apartments, and therefore, no notice was required to be issued to the separate apartments owners. It was submitted that respondent No. 2 would not have details of the individual apartment owners and therefore, the notice was This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 07/11/2025 at 12:50:38 issued to the lessee. 14. In the considered opinion of this Court, Section 8(3) of the aforesaid Act clearly lays down that the show cause notice will have to be issued to the individual apartment owner. The apartment owner must have to be put to notice for the alleged breaches of the terms and conditions of the lease and in the present case, admittedly no such show cause notice in terms of Section 8(3) of the Act was issued to the apartment owners. The impugned order of re-entry dated 07.08.2000 is based upon a show cause notice which was issued in violation of the provision of Section 8(3) of the Act. 15. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 07.08.2000 is set aside. 16. Respondent No. 2 will be at liberty to initiate fresh show cause notice in accordance with law. 17. The present petition has been disposed of with respect to the aforesaid issue and all other legal contentions of both the parties are left open. 18. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. 19. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court forthwith. AMIT SHARMA, J NOVEMBER 1, 2025/kr/sg