Delhi High Court · 2025

Page 1 of 6 $~69 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6948/2025 & CM APPL. 31449/2025, CM APPL. 31450/2025 RAKESH ABROL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pankaj Talwar, Mr. Kuldeep Jauhari, Mr. Anubhav Tyagi, Mr. Sahil Ahuja, Advocates (M:9811222080) versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, Advocate (M:9810045281) CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA 1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the Vacation Notice dated 30O R D E R % 21.05.2025 th2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in possession of the shop in the capacity of a tenant since 1940s. Thus, he submits that the officials of the respondent/Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”), without following the due procedure, are intending to illegally dispossess and demolish the shop of the petitioner. April, 2025 issued by the respondent, whereby, the petitioner has been directed to vacate Shop no. 2303, Ground Floor, Bagga Ram Building, Laxmi Narayan Street, Raj Guru Road, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, Delhi-110055. 3. This Court notes that against the earlier order issued by the MCD dated 11th July, 2022, the petitioner herein had filed a civil suit i.e. OJ No. 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 01/07/2025 at 20:43:51 Page 2 of 6 758122 titled as Rakesh Abrol & Anr. vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi for perpetual injunction. Further, the petitioner has also challenged the order declaring the property bearing no. 2303, Ground Floor, Bagga Ram Building, Laxmi Narayan Street, Raj Guru Road, Chuna Mandi, Paharganj, Delhi-110055, as dangerous. 4. The main contention of the petitioner is that the building in question may be dangerous, however, the property bearing no. 2303, which is in possession of the petitioner, is not dangerous. 5. It is submitted that the respondent/MCD has already demolished some portion of the building, i.e., Bagga Ram Building. It is submitted that the application of the petitioner under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’) in the suit filed by the petitioner, has been dismissed. However, it is submitted that no directions could have been given to the MCD to issue fresh notice for the purposes of carrying out any demolition action. 6. He submits that the respondent should not be granted any powers to demolish any property with the use of machinery and bulldozers. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/MCD submits that the whole building in question is dangerous. He, thus, submits that the Vacation Notice dated 30th8. He submits that the stay application of the petitioner herein already stands dismissed. Thus, he submits that the action taken by the MCD is proper and legal. April, 2025, has rightly been issued, for the purposes of taking demolition action in the building. 9. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, this Court notes that the report of the Structural Engineer from Department of Civil Engineers, Indian 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 01/07/2025 at 20:43:51 Page 3 of 6 Institute of Technology Delhi (“IIT Delhi”) dated 22nd10. The report of the Structural Engineer from IIT Delhi dated 22 October, 2024, is on record, wherein, it has categorically been stated that the building in question is in poor condition and unsafe for further housing.. nd October, 2024, reads as under: 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 01/07/2025 at 20:43:51 Page 4 of 6 11. Further, this Court notes the order dated 22nd“xxx xxx xxx April, 2025, passed by the Court of District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts in CS DJ No. 758/22, wherein, it has been stated as follows: (13) Balance of Convenience: The plaintiff has argued that demolition of Shop No. 2303 would jeopardize his livelihood, a right protected under Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. While the 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 01/07/2025 at 20:43:51 Page 5 of 6 right to carry on business is indeed a fundamental right, it is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed in the interest of the general public, including public safety. The inspection report prepared by IIT Delhi lends credence to the MCD’s position, highlighting corrosion in the roofing structure of Property No. 2303 and cautioning that the demolition of adjoining parts may compromise the stability of the shop in question. In such a scenario, restraining MCD could endanger the lives of residents and passers-by, an eventuality the Court cannot disregard. Hence, the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the defendant/ MCD and public safety. (14) Irreparable Injury- It is trite law that irreparable injury must be such as cannot be compensated in monetary terms. While the plaintiff asserts that the demolition will cause irreparable harm to his livelihood, it is important to note that the MCD’s demolition is aimed at preventing a greater risk to life and property. The potential collapse of an unsafe building entails risk to human life, which clearly outweighs the interest of the plaintiff. No irreparable injury has been demonstrated by Plaintiff that would justify injunctive relief. (15) Offer of Partial Self Demolition: The plaintiff’s proposal to undertake partial demolition at his own cost is neither practicable nor legally tenable. Plaintiff cannot substitute the authority of MCD, which is vested with the statutory and technical mandate to regulate demolition in a safe and coordinated manner. Additionally, it is not possible for the Court to supervise an act which involves the performance of continuous duty, therefore, this Court cannot permit an arrangement that carries potential hazards and undermines institutional procedure. xxx xxx xxx (17) Conclusion- It is not in dispute that the Plaintiff derives his livelihood from the subject shop, however, the source of livelihood cannot be weighed above the right to life and safety of individuals and the community at large. Upon consideration of the pleadings, oral admissions, citations, IIT Delhi’s Inspection report, and applicable legal principles, this Court finds that Plaintiff has not made out a prima facie case; The balance of convenience lies with the defendant MCD, which is acting to safeguard public safety; No irreparable injury has been demonstrated by Plaintiff that would justify injunctive relief. Accordingly, the plaintiff’s application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC stands dismissed. xxx xxx xxx” 12. Perusal of the order clearly shows that there is a categorical finding by 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 01/07/2025 at 20:43:51 Page 6 of 6 the Trial Court that the balance of convenience is in favour of the MCD and public safety. 13. Further, no irreparable injury has been demonstrated by the petitioner i.e. plaintiff in the suit. 14. This Court notes that the challenge to legality of the order dated 22nd15. Considering the submissions made before this Court and the documents on record, this Court finds no error in the action of the MCD in issuing Vacation Notice dated 30 April, 2025 is not before this Court. th16. However, it is clarified that the mere fact that action is being taken against the portion, which is occupied by the petitioner as a tenant, will not be construed as eviction of the petitioner from the premises in question. April, 2025, for the purposes of carrying out demolition action, pursuant to the building in question being as dangerous. 17. Rights of the petitioner as a tenant shall remain in the premises, which shall be decided in appropriate civil proceedings. 18. At request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is given five days time to vacate the premises. 19. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition, along with pending applications, is dismissed. MINI PUSHKARNA, J. MAY 21, 2025/au