A.No. 60/18

A.No. 60/18 30.01.2018

Present : Ms. Meenu Jha, proxy counsel for appellant.

Sh. H.R. Aggarwal, counsel for EDMC.

Memo of appearance on behalf of respondent filed.

Ld. counsel for respondent seeks time to file reply

and record.

In the interest of justice, last and final opportunity is

granted for filing the same on 12.02.2018.

(SANJEEV KUMAR) AD & SJ-cum-P.O.

Appellate Tribunal:MCD 30.01.2018

A.No. 995/17 30.01.2018

Present : Sh. R.R. Jha, counsel for appellant alongwith

appellant in person.

Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD

alongwith Ms. Sarita Gaur, ALO for North

DMC and Sh. Vinay Kumar, L.I.

Ld. counsel for respondent has filed vakalatnama

and seeks time to file reply and record.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that appellant has

already given undertaking to the respondent that appellant

will not misuse the property in question in future.

In these circumstances, let respondent to file status

report whether appellant is liable to pay any misuse

charges, if so, what amount and whether appellant can use

the property in question for commercial purpose or not.

The respondent is given liberty to deseal the property

for the purpose of inspection on 07.02.2018 at 2.00 PM and

after inspection reseal the same on the same day. Copy of

calculation be also supplied to appellant at least one weeks

prior to the date fixed and the appellant is at liberty to

deposit the charges or file objections to the status report, if

any.

Put up this matter for filing of status report by the

respondent and arguments on 20.03.2018.

Copy of the order be given dasti to both the parties,

as prayed.



A.No. 546/14 30.01.2018

Present : Sh. Shiv Kumar Yadav, proxy counsel for

appellant.

Sh. Nilesh Sawhney alongwith Sh. Sarthak,

counsel for NDMC, Sh. A.P. Tikka, Asstt.

Architect and Sh. Ashok Kumar, Sr. Asstt.

Ld. counsel for respondent submits that status report

could not be completed and seeks some more time to file

the same.

From the earlier status report filed by the respondent,

it is not apparent that property in question can be used for

commercial purpose or not.

Therefore, let respondent to file specific status report

whether property in question is situated in notified road or

non-notified road and whether property can be used for

commercial purpose or not and for what purpose same can

be used.





A.No. 923/17 30.01.2018

Present : Sh. S.R. Jolly, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Vikas Gupta, counsel for MCD alongwith

Ms. Sarita Gaur, ALO for North DMC and Sh.

Vinay Kumar, L.I.

Status report of misuse charges not filed by the

respondent.

ALO submits that the entire staff was busy in sealing

at the instance of Monitoring Committee, therefore,

inspection could not be carried out.


granted to carry out the inspection of the property.

For this purpose, respondent is given liberty to

deseal the property on 16.02.2018 at 2.00 PM and after

inspection reseal the same on the same day. Copy of

calculation be also supplied to appellant at least one week



any.




as prayed.



A.No. 950/16 30.01.2018

Present : Appellant in person.

Sh. Madan Sagar, counsel for SDMC.

Ms. Malti Sidhhu, counsel for applicant.

Local Commissioner has already filed status report.

Appellant submits that her counsel is not available

and seeks adjournment.

In the interest of justice, case is adjourned for filing of

objections to the Local Commissioner report, if any / final

arguments on 08.05.2018.



A.No. 1092/15 & 375/17 30.01.2018

Present : Ms. Anuja Sharma, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Shashikant Sharma, counsel for MCD

alongwith Sh. Raj Bhushan, JLO from EDMC.

Status report not filed by the respondent by which

mode IN dated 02.03.2016 was sent by the respondent.


granted to file the same on 18.04.2018.



A.No. 978/17 30.01.2018

Present : Appellant in person.

Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD

alongwith Sh. Sanjay Gupta, ALO and Sh.

Naved Alam, L.I.

Inspection not done by the respondent corporation

despite directions.

ALO submits that file has been sent to Addl.

Commissioner for approval. This is not acceptable at all as

it is amount to contempt of court. However, counsel for

respondent assures to carry out the inspection, therefore,

last and final opportunity to inspect the property.

For this purpose, respondent is given liberty to

deseal the property on 07.02.2018 at 2.00 PM and after

inspection reseal the same on the same day. Copy of

calculation be also supplied to appellant at least one week



any.




as prayed.



A.No. 811/16 30.01.2018

Present : Sh. S.N. Khanna, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Abhishek, proxy counsel for Sh. Ashutosh

Gupta, counsel for MCD alongwith Sh. R.K.

Jain, AE(B) and Sh. Sandeep Manglik, Nodal

Officer for North DMC.

Status report filed by the respondent. As per the

status report the regularization application was reopened

and processed and same was rejected vide letter dated

29.01.2018. Copy of letter of rejection dated 29.01.2018

has also been filed alongwith status report. Copy supplied.

Ld. counsel for appellant seeks some time to argue.


granted for final arguments on 20.04.2018.



A.No. 40/13 30.01.2018

Present : Sh. Rohit Jain, counsel for appellant.

Sh. H.R. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD.

It is submitted that the matter has been settled in the

Hon’ble High Court in LPA No. 572/11 titled as MCD Vs.

Cellular Operator Association of India and copy of order

dated 28.08.2017, and therefore, application need to be

filed as per terms of settlement between the respondent and

appellant.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that appellant is

ready to file the fresh application within two months. If the

same is filed by the appellant, then respondent will decide

the same as per law and file status report.

In these circumstances, if application is filed within

stipulated period then respondent will not take any further

coercive action, however if the application is not filed by the

appellant within stipulated period, respondent will be at

liberty to take further demolition action qua the tower in

question.

Put up this matter on 21.05.2018.


as prayed.



A.No. 306/13 30.01.2018


Sh. H.R. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD.






appellant.








A.No. 105/13 & 162/14 30.01.2018


Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD.






appellant.









liberty to take further demolition / sealing action qua the

tower in question.



as prayed.



A.No. 711/16 30.01.2018

Present : Ms. Laxmi Singh, counsel for appellant.

Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, proxy counsel for MCD


Nodal Officer seeks some more time to file the status

report in which case record has been filed by the

respondent. Already two dates have been given for the

same purpose.


granted to file status report in which case record has been

filed by the respondent and if same has not been filed by

the respondent file the same, failing which concerned Dy.

Commissioner will appear in person on next date of hearing.






appellant.








A.No. 838/15 30.01.2018


Ms. Nagina Jain, counsel for SDMC.

Status report filed by the respondent. As per the

status report the regularization application of the appellant

was rejected on 17.02.2010 and a letter was sent to the

appellant company vide no. 5247/EE(B)/WZ/2010. Copy of

the said letter has also been filed.

Further in the status report it is mentioned that now it

has come to the notice from the local enquiry of the area

that the jurisdiction of Community Centre, Block-C is with

the DDA, however, it has not been specified whether the

MCD has any jurisdiction at the time of passing of impugned

order or not, therefore, further status report be filed in this

regard by the respondent.





A.No. 64/17 & 99/17 30.01.2018

Present : Sh. Raja Harpal Singh, counsel for appellant.

Sh. K.K. Arora / Sh. Amit Kumar, proxy

counsel for Sh. Naveen Grover, counsel for

MCD alongwith Ms. Sarita Gaur, ALO for

North DMC.

Nodal Officer submits that JE(B) has gone to inspect

the property on 27.01.2018 as per directions of this Tribunal

but property was found locked due to which inspection could

not be done and she prays for joint inspection.

In these circumstances, let joint inspection of the

property be carried out on 15.02.2018 at 02.00 PM.

Appellant is also directed to be present at the spot, failing

which adverse inference will be drawn.




as prayed.



A.No. 790/13 30.01.2018

Present : Sh. Gaurav Jeet Singh, proxy counsel for

appellant.

Sh. Nilesh Sawhney with Sh. Sarthak, counsel

for NDMC, Ms. Rashmi Garg, Assistant

Architect, Sh. Ashok Kumar, Sr. Asstt.

Misuse charges not deposited by the appellant

neither any objection to the status report has been filed

despite seeking two opportunities.


granted to pay the misuse charges or file objections to the

status report, if any, subject to costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be

deposited with Registry of this Tribunal.





A.No. 220/17 30.01.2018

Present : Proxy counsel for appellant.

Sh. K.K. Arora, counsel for MCD alongwith Sh.

Avdesh Bhardwaj, L.I.

Ld. proxy counsel for appellant submits that some

more time is required to deposit the misuse charges.

In these circumstances, case is adjourned to

24.04.2018.



A.No. 1071/16 30.01.2018

Present : Sh. Ajay Tyagi, counsel for appellant.


Gupta, counsel for MCD.

None for Monitoring Committee.

None has appeared on behalf of the Monitoring

Committee neither any status report has been filed

therefore, right of Monitoring Committee to file status report

is hereby closed.

Status report not filed by the respondent.

Ld. counsel for respondent seeks some more time to

file the status report and submits that property in question

has been inspected but AE(B) has not turned up as he is

busy in Hon’ble High Court and submits that report will be

filed within two days though today is last opportunity to file

the same.


granted to file the status report with advance copy of the

same be supplied to the appellant at least one week prior to

date fixed, failing which concerned Dy. Commissioner will

appear in person on next date of hearing.

Appellant is at liberty to deposit the charges if any,

demanded by the respondent and supply copy of the

receipts to the concerned AE(B) who shall file status report

whether amount has been deposited or not.


respondent on 27.03.2018.



A.No. 413/16 & 567/14

30.01.2018

Present : Ms. Komal, proxy counsel for appellant.

Ms. Nagina Jain / Sh. Nirmit Gaur, counsel for

MCD.

Sh. Inder Singh, Tehsildar and Sh. Jai Bhagwan,

Patwari for SDM, Defence Colony.

Status report filed by the SDM, Defence Colony. As per

the status report it could not be possible to confirm whether

property falls in Deh abadi (Lal Dora) village Kotla Mubarakpur

has been urbanized and heavily built up. Further the prayer has

been made on behalf of the SDM, Defence Colony for exemption

from personal appearance alongwith copy of the report.

Further as per the report of field staff tagged with the

status report of SDM, it is mentioned that Khasra No. 282 is the

Deh Abadi Khasra. The copy of the sizra has also been filed

showing the Khasra which is Deh Abadi (Lal Dora).

In view of filing of the status report, SDM, Defence Colony

is exempted from personal appearance and he is discharged.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that the appellant

property falls in Khasra No. 282 as evident from the sale deed.

Part arguments heard.

On perusal of the record, I found that respondent has

passed the impugned order of rejection of regularization

application on 07.08.2015 on the ground of non-compliance of

the IN dated 16.10.2014.

In the appeal, it is mentioned that the appellant has

complied the requirements of the said IN through the

regularization application itself.

In these circumstances, let respondent to file status report

which of the requirements mentioned in the IN dated 16.10.2014

has not been complied by the appellant.



Interim stay, if any, is extended till next date.



A.No. 25/16 & 26/16 30.01.2018

Present : Ms. Anuja Sharma, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Madan Sagar, counsel for SDMC.

Sh. R.N. Oberoi, counsel for applicant.

Local Commissioner has filed its report. As per the

report he inspected the property on 17.11.2017 and during

inspection he has dug out the ground floor to file out

basement but no basement was found existed at the site.

Ld. counsel for applicant submits that applicant has

filed the affidavit in terms of the order dated 17.11.2017 let

respondent to inspect the said property and file status report

whether there is any unauthorized construction in the said

property, if so, what action has been taken against the said

property and whether any action is required or not.

In the meanwhile, concerned AE(B), who has booked

the property, to appear in person on next date of hearing to

explain on what grounds basement has been booked as

there is no basement in the property in question.

Put up this matter for filing of objection to Local

Commissioner report / final arguments on 03.04.2018.


as prayed.



A.No. 1184/15 30.01.2018

Present : Sh. Arun Yadav, counsel for appellant.

Ms. Sarita Gaur, ALO for North DMC

alongwith Sh. Vinay Kumar, L.I.

Nodal officer seeks some more time to file status

report on the ground that same could not be signed from the

AC. She further submits that same will be filed within two

days. Advance copy of the same be supplied to the

appellant at least four weeks prior to the date fixed and

appellant will be at liberty to deposit the charges or file

objection to the status report.





A.No. 944/16 30.01.2018

Present : Ms. Ritu Dhuriya, counsel for appellant.

This case is fixed for orders, ld. counsel for appellant

has filed some documents alongwith application for keeping

the same on record and seeks adjournment for filing written

submissions.

In the interest of justice, matter is adjourned for filing

of written submissions within six weeks.

Put up this matter for clarification, if any / orders on

13.04.2018.



A.No. 892/17 30.01.2018

Present : Sh. Gulshan Kumar Taneja, counsel for

appellant.

Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, counsel for MCD alongwith

Sh. Sanjay Gupta, ALO.

Ld. counsel for appellant has filed inventory of the

goods lying in the premises alongwith photographs. Copy

supplied.

Ld. counsel for respondent has filed status report

alongwith the calculation of misuse charges and letter

written to the appellant for supplying of the said calculations.

As per the calculations filed by the respondent,

appellant is liable to pay sum of Rs. 3,22,715/- as ten times

penalty for misuse + conversion charges + interest.


bed-ridden, therefore, he has not received any instructions

from the appellant whether he intend to deposit the charges

of file objection to the status report.

In these circumstances, appellant is given last and

final opportunity to deposit misuse charges or file objection

to the status report. In case, appellant deposit the misuse

charges, he will supply the copy of the receipt at least one

week prior to the date fixed to the AE(B), who shall file the

status report whether charges has been deposited by the

appellant or not.





A.No. 320/15 30.01.2018

Present : None for appellant.

Sh. Sandeep Gupta, counsel for MCD


Arguments heard from counsel for respondent. Since

none has appeared on behalf of the appellant hence, right

to arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant is closed,

however, he can file written submissions within four weeks.

Put up this matter for clarification, if any / orders on

16.04.2018.



A.No. 953/16 30.01.2018

Present : Sh. Rupesh Sharma, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Sanjay Gupta, ALO alongwith Sh. Sharvan

Kumar, L.I.

L.I. has produced the record of property bearing no.

F-372. He submits that there was another property with the

name of J.R. Sons in the plot no. F-372, Sudarshan Park to

whom notice was given for sealing and sealing order was

also passed and sealing was not done as on inspection it

was found that one Kiryana shop was running and factory

was shifted from the premises whereas appellant property is

in the name of J.R. Enterprises which is also situated in the

plot no. F-372 but notice was issued to the Sh. Jagjit Singh

but on local enquiry it was told that J.R. Enterprises belong

to Sh. Jagdish Singh.

Nodal Officer submits that name of the owner of the

notice might have been wrong but it is not disputed that

same was sent on J.R. Enterprises which belong to

appellant Sh. Raghubir Singh, hence, the impugned order

is qua the appellant property not qua the other plot of J.R.

Sons for which separate proceedings was initiated.

Put up this matter for final arguments on 20.03.2018.



A.No. 312/15 30.01.2018

Present : Sh. K.N. Singh, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Amit Kumar, proxy counsel for Sh. Naveen

Grover, counsel for MCD alongwith Sh. Sanjay

Gupta, ALO.

Sh. Vimal Dhingra, counsel for applicant.

An application under order 1 rule 10 CPC has been

filed by the applicant Sh. Sumit Dawar, Sh. Ram Gopal and

Smt. Sukeshi Aggarwal, as respondent. Copy of the

application supplied.

Notice of the application be also issued to the

proposed party.

No reply has been filed by the respondent

corporation.

Let respondent corporation to file reply regarding the

stand of respondent in view of the facts stated in the appeal.

Put up this matter for arguments on application u/s 5

of the Limitation Act as well as on the main appeal itself on

13.04.2018.



A.No. 439/17 30.01.2018

Present : Sh. Ajay Kumar, counsel for appellant.


Gupta, counsel for MCD alongwith Sh. Sanjay

Gupta, ALO.

Sh. Vimal Dhingra, counsel for respondent no.

2 and 3.

None for Respondent no. 4 & 5.

Ld. counsel for respondent no. 2 & 3 has filed reply of

the application for condonation of delay. He further submits

that he will take instructions from respondent no. 4 & 5

whether they are interested to pursue the case or not.

No reply has been filed by the respondent

corporation.

Let respondent corporation to file reply regarding the

stand of respondent in view of the facts stated in the appeal.

Put up this matter for arguments on application u/s 5

of the Limitation Act as well as on the main appeal itself on

13.04.2018.



A.No. 01/15 30.01.2018

Present : Ms. Preeti Dinker, proxy counsel for appellant.

Ms. Renu Soni, Nodal Officer for SDMC.






appellant.

Ld. proxy counsel for appellant submits that appellant

is ready to file the fresh application within two months. If the







liberty to take further demolition / sealing action qua the

tower in question.



as prayed.



A.No. 781/13 30.01.2018


Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, counsel for SDMC.

Sh. Ravi Kapoor, counsel for applicant.

None has appeared on behalf of the appellant.

Put up this matter at 02.00 PM.



3.00 PM

Present : As above.

No one has appeared on behalf of the appellant

despite several calls since morning. It appears that

appellant is not interested in pursuing the present appeal.

Hence, the appeal is dismissed in default and for non

prosecution. MCD is at liberty to take action in the property

of the appellant bearing no. C-546, First floor, Defence

Colony, New Delhi in pursuance of the impugned sealing

order.

File be consigned to record.



A.No. 36/18 30.01.2018

Present : Sh. Dhirendra Singh, counsel for appellant.

File taken up on an application filed by the appellant

for early hearing.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that during the

pendency of the appeal, respondent has issued the vacation

notice, therefore, matter is required to be taken up urgently.

Considering the facts, I allow the application. Issue

notice of the application to the respondent as well as

counsel for respondent for 31.01.2018 at 2.00 PM.

Notice be given dasti, as prayed.



A.No. 69/18 30.01.2018

Present : Sh. Dhirendra Singh, counsel for appellant.

Present appeal has been filed against demolition

order dated 08.01.2018.

Let notice of the appeal and application be issued to

the respondent through concerned Chief Law Officer and

AE(B). AE(B) is directed to file entire record of the

proceedings and reply of the appeal on date fixed.

Put up this matter on 31.01.2018 at 2.00 PM. Notice

be given dasti, as prayed.



A.No. 66/18 30.01.2018

Present : Sh. B.K. Pande counsel for appellant.

Present appeal has been filed against rejection of

regularization order dated 16.01.2018.

Let notice of the appeal and application be issued to

the respondent through concerned Chief Law Officer. AE(B)

is directed to file entire record of the proceedings and reply

of the appeal on date fixed.




A.No. 1012/16 30.01.2018

Present : Sh. S.D. Ansari counsel for appellant.

Sh. Vikas Gupta counsel for respondent.

Ld. counsel for respondent submits that despite

directions of this court, copy of affidavit, photographs and

site plan has not been supplied by the counsel for appellant.

Ld. counsel for appellant disputes the same, however

he has supplied copy of the affidavit, photograph and copy

of site plan to the counsel for respondent.


granted to file the status report in terms of the orders dated

10.03.2017.





A.No. 739/17 30.01.2018

Present : Sh. S.D. Ansari counsel for appellant.

Sh. Dharamvir Gupta, counsel for MCD .

Put up this matter with connected appeal no. 1012/16

on 11.04.2018.



A.No. 689/12 & 690/12 30.01.2018

Present : Sh. Satish Kumar, proxy counsel for appellant.

Ms. Shreya Singh, counsel for applicant.

File taken up on an application filed by the appellant

and applicant Col. Kritika for sending the file to mediation.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that appeal no.

07/2017 titled as M.L. Kaktikar Vs. NDMC which is now

listed for 08.02.2018 before the Ld. District Judge.

In my view, there is no need to send the file to the

mediation.

In view of the same, counsel for appellant wants to

withdraw the application, hence, same is dismissed.

Put up this matter on the date already fixed i.e. on

05.02.2018.



A.No. 826/17 30.01.2018

Present : Sh. Umesh Chandra, counsel for appellant.

Ms. Nagina Jain, counsel for MCD.

Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent filed.

An application has been filed by the counsel for

appellant for waiver of the costs of Rs. 10,000/- which was

imposed on last date of hearing. He submits that in the

night of 31.10.2017 due to heavy dental problem he had to

go to dentist and was not able to attend the court.

He further submits that the counsel is a patient of

diabetes and feeling shivering and weakness in the body as

such informed Sh. Priyank Saini to appear in the above

noted case and seeks adjournment, however, he appeared

before this court but could not communicate the said fact

due to which this court imposed the costs.

Alongwith application, affidavit of the appellant has

also been filed.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,

I allow the application and waive the costs.


Ld. counsel for appellant submits that appellant want

to apply for regularization in these circumstances, in case,

appellant apply for regularization within four weeks then

respondent will not take any action against the property in

question otherwise respondent officials will be at liberty to

take action as per law and if applied then respondent will

decide the application for regularization as per law and file

status report in this regard.





A.No. 189/14 30.01.2018

Present : Sh. Sanjeev Behl, counsel for appellant.

Sh. Nilesh Sawhney with Sh. Sarthak, counsel

for NDMC and Sh. Ashok Kumar, Sr. Asstt.


During the arguments, ld. counsel for appellant

submits that as per table 13.27 at serial no. 26 of amended

MPD-2021 commercial office / retail space is permissible

hence, at present appellant is running the commercial

activities.

Ld. counsel for respondent submits that first of all

when the impugned order was passed i.e. on 21.02.2014

the said amendment was not introduced in the MPD-2021

and we have to go by the law which was applicable at that

time.

He further submits that as per the appellant itself

premises was allotted on lease by L&DO for institutional

purpose and it cannot be used for retail shops / commercial

purpose.

In my view, institutions are like school, hospital,

cultural centre etc. therefore, respondent can specify for

which purpose the premises can be used by Garwal

Hiteshani Sabha and further in view of the amendment in

MPD-2021 whether now premises can be used for

commercial purpose or not.

Both appellant as well as respondent are directed to

file constitution and memorandum of society by next date of

hearing.




as prayed.



A.No. 819/14 30.01.2018


Sh. Rajender Arya, counsel for NDMC alongwith

Sh. Ashok Kumar, Sr. Asstt.

This case is fixed for arguments on maintainability of the

appeal.

None is present on behalf of the appellant, hence,

arguments heard from counsel for respondent.

Ld. counsel for respondent submits that appellant has filed

the appeal against the order dated 22.07.2014 for depositing of

depositing of penalty for misusing of the premises.

He further submits that the said order dated 22.07.2014

was not an order but a letter of the respondent to pay balance

penalty amount alongwith interest due for payment of annual

conversion charges for the year 2014-15 for the premises bearing

no. 9, Aradhana Colony, Sector-13, R.K. Puram, New Delhi and

the said order is not appealable order hence, appeal is not

maintainable.

He also submits that through this letter respondent has

only demanded the balance annual conversion charges which

has been nomenclature as penalty by the respondent and

appellant is liable to pay annual conversion charges as per MPD-

2021 for using the property for commercial purpose.

I have considered the submissions and gone through the

record.

As per NDMC Act appeal can be filed against the order

passed u/s 247, 248 & 249 as prescribed in section 254 of the

NDMC Act, 1994, therefore, letter dated 22.07.2014 does not fall

in the category of order which is appealable u/s 254 of the NDMC

Act, 1994, hence, I am agree with the counsel for respondent that

appeal is not maintainable before this court, therefore, same is

dismissed being not maintainable.

File be consigned to record room.



A.No. 65/18

30.01.2018

Present : Sh. Ravi Gupta, Sr. counsel for appellant alongwith Sh. Brijesh Tyagi, A.R. of appellant Company.

An application under order 1 rule 10 CPC has been filed

by the counsel for appellant to implead M/s Intense Fitness and

Spa Pvt. Ltd.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that the said firm is

tenant of the appellant and is running fitness centre from the

premises. He further submits that the AR of the said firm is

present and ready to give the statement that he has no objection

in case present appeal is persued by the appellant herein and will

abide the order whatsoever passed in the said appeal by this

court and forego to file the appeal against the said order.

Statement of the AR of the appellant company has been recorded

in this regard separately.

In view of the statement, of AR of M/s Intense Fitness and

Spa Pvt. Ltd. In my view there is no need to implead the M/s

Intense Fitness and Spa Pvt. Ltd. as respondent, hence

application is dismissed.

Arguments heard on application for interim stay.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that property in question

is situated on commercial street i.e. Aurobindo Marg between

Ansari Nagar to red light of Kaushalya Park and appellant has

already deposited the conversion as well as parking charges for

FAR of basement. He further submits that respondent has

passed non-speaking order as in the order it is mentioned that

reply was not satisfactory, but no reason was given why the same

was not found satisfactory, hence, the order is liable to be set

aside, therefore, till decision of the appeal respondent be restrain

from taking action qua the property in question in pursuance of

the impugned order.

I have considered the submissions and gone through the

record.

Respondent has passed the sealing order u/s 345-A of the

DMC Act dated 19.01.2018 whereby respondent has ordered to

seal the property in question i.e. property no. C-2/10, Safdurjung

Development Area, New Delhi for running gymnasium under the

name and style of M/s Anatomi Life Style Fitness with the order

A.No. 65/18 that the reply of show cause notice was received from Sh. M.B.

Mathur – authorized signatory – M/s Apna Ghar Builders Pvt. Ltd.

i.e. (appellant) but contention was not found satisfactory.

I have also perused the show cause notice. In the show

cause notice only it is mentioned that the premises is being

misused against the provisions of MPD-2021 / Sanctioned Plan.

In the reply filed by the appellant, it is stated that appellant has

applied for conversion of the said property for commercial use

and has paid the conversion charges including FAR and parking

charges.

In these circumstances, in my view, Quasi Judicial

Authority should have discussed in the impugned order why the

reply was not found satisfactory. Therefore, prima facie order

appeared to be cryptic.

Hence, in these circumstances, it is a fit case for grant of

ex-parte interim stay. Hence, I order that respondent corporation

will not carry out any sealing action in the property of the

appellant bearing no. C-2/10, Safdurjung Development Area,

Aurobindo Marg, New Delhi qua the impugned sealing order till

next date of hearing. However this order shall not have any

bearing in merit of the case.

Appellant is directed not to create any third party interest

in the property in question.

In case any order is found passed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court or Hon’ble High Court for demolition/ sealing qua

the property in question, then this order will not come in the way

and respondent will comply the Hon’ble Supreme Court / Hon’ble

High Court order.

Let notice of the appeal and application be issued to the

respondent through concerned Chief Law Officer. AE(B) is

directed to file entire record of the proceedings and reply of the

appeal on date fixed.


Copy of the order be given dasti, as prayed.



A.No. 305/16 30.01.2018


Ms. Nagina Jain, counsel for MCD.

Ld. counsel for appellant submits that LPA No.

572/11 qua the appellants is still pending in the Hon’ble

High Court and now the same is listed for 01.02.2018 in the

regular category.

In the circumstances, put up this matter for

arguments on 22.05.2018.



A.No. 30.01.2018

Present :



A.No. 30.01.2018

Present :



A.No. 30.01.2018

Present :



A.No. 30.01.2018

Present :



A.No. 30.01.2018

Present :



A.No. 30.01.2018

Present :



A.No. 30.01.2018

Present :



A.No. Statement of Sh.

ON SA

RO&AC




ON SA

RO&AC




ON SA

RO&AC




ON SA

RO&AC




ON SA

RO&AC



A.No. 65/18 Statement of Sh. Brijesh Tyagi, S/o Sh. K.S. Tyagi, R/o B-23-25, Flat No.

1, Second floor, Kailash Colony, New Delhi-48.

ON SA

I am one of the directors of M/s Intense Fitness and Spa Pvt. Ltd.

and also AR of the said company. In this regard, a resolution has been

passed by the above said company. The same is Ex. P-1. Copy of the

memorandum of association of company is Ex. P-2 and my name appear

in the list of director in the said memorandum of association. I am

authorized through the resolution to appear before this Tribunal and give

the statement, and engage advocate or file application, affidavit,

documents etc as may be required for conducting the said matter.

The aforesaid company is running gymnasium from the property

bearing no. C-2/10, Safdurjung Development Area, Aurobindo Marg, New

Delhi which is taken on rent from the appellant i.e. Apna Ghar Builders

Pvt. Ltd. vide lease deed dated 04.01.2016 which is Ex. P-3 and bears

my signature as authorized signatory at point ‘A’ on all the pages of the

said lease deed. I am aware that sealing order bearing no.

D/46/M/Dc/Bldg./SZ/2017 dated 19.01.2018 u/s 345-A of the DMC Act

has been passed by the SDMC qua the premises which is under my

company tenancy on the ground of misuse. Our company has no

objections if the same is contested by the appellant / owner of the said

premises and the company will abide the decision whatever is passed in

the said case and company forego the right to challenge the order

independently.

RO&AC



Documents

A.No. 60/18