UNITED TAXI OPERATORS CO OPERATIVE URBAN THRIFT AND CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner. United Taxi Operators Co-operative (Urban) Thrift and Credit Society Limited, is a co-operative society of taxi operators, and the second petitioner is the Secretary of the said society. They have filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the respondent. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, restraining them from dismantling the petrol pump located at E. 2/1, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi, or from discontinuing the electric connection installed at the said petrol pump. It is alleged that in pursuance of an agreement entered into in 1960 between the said society and the Standard Vaccum Oil Company now known as Esso Standard Eastern Inc. the said company obtained on lease a plot of land measuring 30'x 60' situateatE.2/1,East Patel Nagar, New Delhi, on a monthly rent of Rs. 275 from one Dewan Siri Ram Puri. This lease was taken by the Esso Standard Eastern Inc. (hereinafter referred to as the Esso) for intalling a petrol pump there and letting it out to the said society on the terms and conditions set out in the agreement dated 20th October, 1960 (annexure 'A' to the petition). The Esso. therefore, approached the various authorities for permission to instal a coumer filling station for the society and permission was accorded by them as well as by the District Magistrate, Delhi, for such installation. After the accord of sanction mentioned above, the Esso fitted an under-ground storage tank in the said area and installed a petrol pump thereon. Immediately thereafter, the Esso submitted an application to the respondent for supply of electric energy to work the petrol pump, which was granted and electricity connection given. It is further alleged that electricity is still being supplied at the petrol pump and bills therefore regularly paid. The allegations in the petition proceed that no building or shed was constructed on the said plot of land, that the petitioners from 1962 till date peacefully enjoyed the benefits of the said consumer filling station, that the officials of the respondent have been visiting the site and threatening the demolition of the installations on the ground that same had been built in contravention of the building law? of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, and that dispute representations by the Esso the respondent has ordered dismantling of the petrol pump.

(2.) The matter came up for hearing before Shamsher Bahadur, J. who thought that the contention urged on behalf of the petitioners, namely, that the underground filling station with no structure over the ground is not a building as defined in sub-section (3) of section 2 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, and, therefore, they have no authority to interfere with the said structure, raised a point of importance, on which there was no direct authority and therefore, should be decided by a larger Bench. It is in these circumstances that the writ petition has been placed before us for disposal.

(3.) Mr. Parkash Narain, learned counsel for the petitioners, has repeated the same contention, as urged before the learned Single Judge and says that the underground filling station is not a building within the meaning of sub-section (3) of section 2 of the said Act, and, therefore, it is not competent to the respondent to demolish the same. It is said that the only structure involved in the filling station is a steel tank sunk in the ground with a petrol pump installed over it and, therefore, it is not a building. The argument proceeds that there has been no erection of any structure and the various provisions of the Act seem to suggest that only such structures, as are capable of use either for human habitation or for keeping of animals etc. can be termed as buildings. According to the petitioners, there is no erection of any building, because the storage tank is sunk in the ground, then filled on the sides with clay without involving any masonry work and the pump above the ground is only fixed with a few screws. Varioul instances have been given by Mr. Parkash Narain to show that if such a structure is held to be a building, it would result in diverse anomalies. One of the examples given by Mr. Parkash Narain is that if he sinks' a small tin box in the compound of his house it would not be a building and sinking of a petrol storage tank is nothing more than sinking a trunk of a larger size. 'Building' has been defined in sub-section (3) of section 2 of the said Act as under - "2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-