SUNIL TANEJA AND ANR. Vs. MCD AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, in these writ proceedings, claims directions to de -seal the property, being I -124, Lajpat Nagar -I (hereafter "the suit property") and that the respondents Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) should permit him to carry out rectification work in the building.

(2.) The petitioner claims to be owner of the suit property; by virtue of a registered sale deed, dated 30th April, 2008. He states that the previous owners of the suit property had entered into a collaboration agreement with one Rajiv Chawla, on 18.02.2005, whereby the first floor of the property was go be given to him (Rajiv Chawla). That transaction did not fructify; and a suit was filed by the owners, seeking declaration against the said agreement was unenforceable. The suit was disposed of on 28.04.2008, on the basis of Shri Chawla's statement that he would not interfere with the peaceful possession of the suit property. The petitioners say that they became aware about some unauthorized construction, after they purchased the suit property, and that a letter was issued on 08.08.2006 seeking de -sealing of the property, where the former owners were given the chance to submit a rectification plan, and comply with the bye laws, in carrying on building activity in accordance with bye laws. The former owners, however, did not avail the opportunity.

(3.) The petitioners mention having asked the MCD to de -seal the property to which a response, dated 29.05.2009 was received, intimating about approval of the de -sealing of the demised premises for 15 days to carry on rectification work. The suit property was therefore, de -sealed; however, in the first week of June, the petitioners received a legal notice, asking them to desist from rectifying the construction, since the one Suresh Gulati had filed a suit, before this Court, seeking specific performance of an alleged agreement, in respect of the suit property, entered into with Shri Rajiv Chawla. The petitioners immediately represented to MCD stating that the said Shri Gulati had no connection with the suit property. The petitioner says that despite mentioning all facts, the MCD re -sealed the suit property, which is arbitrary and contrary to law as well as principles of natural justice. It is alleged that a de -sealing order, once issued, cannot be superseded, except where the occupier has suppressed material facts, or new developments about the property come to light, which have not happened in this case. The petitioner contends that the pendency of the suit to which he is not a party cannot authorize the MCD to seal the property.