Owner Has Vested Crystalised Legal Right To Use House For Residential Purpose: Supreme Court Dismisses SDMC's Appeal
The appeal before the Supreme Court arose from the judgments by which the appeal filed by the appellant- South Delhi Municipal Corporation, came to be dismissed.
Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice K.V. Viswanathan, Supreme Court
While dismissing an appeal preferred by the South Delhi Municipal Corporation, the Supreme Court has held that owners have a vested crystalised legal right to use the house for residential purposes and the Municipal Corporation can’t expect them to put up construction in a manner by which the ground portion would be for commercial use.
The appeal before the Apex Court arose from the judgments by which the appeal filed by the appellant- South Delhi Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner came to be dismissed, thereby affirming the grant of deemed sanction to the plans which were put forward by the respondents for construction of a residential house.
The Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan held, “The land is said to have been purchased sometime in 1935 and construction of the house was completed sometime in 1940. We are at our wits' end to understand how does the appellant expect the respondents to put up construction in a manner by which the ground portion would be for commercial use, and the upper floor would be for residential purpose, and more particularly, when he has a vested crystalised legal right to use it for residential purpose for all times to come.”
Factual Background
The respondents decided to dismantle their 85-year-old residential house which was in a dilapidated condition. The respondents wanted to put up a new construction to be utilised for their residence. The plans were accordingly prepared and put forward before the appellant in the year 2010. When the respondents went before the Appellate Authority–MCD, which is a Tribunal constituted under the provisions of Section 347A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, the Tribunal allowed the application and granted deemed sanction of the plans.
Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Tribunal–MCD, the appellant filed an appeal. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the Court of the Additional District Judge, the appellant went before the High Court by way of a writ petition. The appellant preferred another Special Leave Petition against the order of the Single Judge and obtained liberty to seek review of the order, which also came to be dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
Arguments
It was the appellant’s case that the construction had to be strictly in accordance with the Master Plan and sub-Zonal Plan, respectively, meant for the Ansari Road, Darya Ganj. According to the appellants, even if the respondents wanted to construct a new house, they were obliged in law to put up a shop on the ground floor, which should be commercial in nature and thereafter, on the first floor or the second floor, they could make their residence.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the circular dated May 27, 2009, the Bench noted that the Single Judge very correctly held that the owners cannot be compelled to convert the ground floor of their residential accommodation to a commercial unit; rather, they may choose to do so.
The Bench held, “The argument canvassed on behalf of the appellant defies logic that the respondents may continue to reside in the dilapidated house, but if they want to put up new construction, then it has to be commercial on the ground floor and upper floor as residence. Even the notification, which we have referred to above, does not support the case put forward by the appellant in any manner.”
Noting that the litigation was almost 15 years old, the Bench stated that with 15 years having passed by, the respondents would have to incur huge expenditure for putting up new construction. Taking note of the photographs of the subject house of the respondents, the Bench stated that the same was in a dilapidated condition and could collapse at any time. “In fact, the appellant should have expressed concern about the safety and lives of the occupants of this house, rather than objecting to sanctioning of their plans. This is nothing short of harassment”, it added.
Thus, dismissing the Petition, the Bench permitted the respondents to put forward fresh plans for approval. “The plans shall be for construction of a house. Once the plans are submitted, the authority concerned shall sanction the same within a period of four weeks from the date of presentation and grant necessary permission to put up construction meant for residential purpose”, it ordered.
Cause Title: South Delhi Municipal Corporation v. Bharat Bhushan Jain (Dead) (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1324)