S. B. Wad, J. ( 1 ) LARGE scale illegal constructions both residential andcommercial has become a major civic problem in Delhi. Innumerable cases havebeen coming to the Court where it is seen that illegal constructions are madewith impunity, many times with the connivance of the officers of the civilauthorities. The Courts are faced with fait accompli of huge illegal constructions which it is difficult to demolish at a subsequent stage. In some cases thecourts have given directions to the administration to fix responsibility on theofficers who are resppnsible for permitting the illegal constructions in theirareas. The evil has reached such a dimension that the Bench of this Court wasrequired to appoint a high-power Committee consisting of the Chiefs of thelocal authorities in Delhi for urgent action in this matter. Time and again thelocal authorities make a show as if they are serious and seal some premises ordemolish some. ( 2 ). The present case represents the open flouting of all laws and building bye-laws by a tenant who, without the authorisation by the landlord andwithout the sanction plan from the Municipal Authorities has carried out massive construction inside the tenanted premises. The tenanted premises are locatedat 46, Janpath, New Delhi, where respondents 4 to 9 are running a restaurant. The construction with structural changes was made under the pretext of restoration of the premises after the fire broke out in the premises in 1987. Ironically enough, the new construction is carried out without the sanction andclearance of the authorities under the Delhi Fire Prevention and Fire Safetyact, 1986. ( 3 ). The illegal construction with structural changes is as follows : "a full mezzanine floor is constructed, doubling the usable space inthe said restaurant. The original mezzanine floor which was awooden structure on half of the area has been doubled with a puccafloor supported by huge pillars, decorated by marble. The height ofthe mezzanine floor has been raised to about 10 ft. and convertedinto a regular first floor by lowering the ground floor by over 60cms. A new stair-case with increased breadth and length and withmarble slabs has been constructed. Boundary wall in the rear courtyard has been raised by approximately 4 ft. A new latrine and urinalhas been constructed in the restaurant. So also cemented racks havebeen constructed in the backyard for storage of utensils etc. Certainsheds have also been put up in the backyard. A new stair-case with increased breadth and length and withmarble slabs has been constructed. Boundary wall in the rear courtyard has been raised by approximately 4 ft. A new latrine and urinalhas been constructed in the restaurant. So also cemented racks havebeen constructed in the backyard for storage of utensils etc. Certainsheds have also been put up in the backyard. " ( 4 ). Most of these illegal constructions are confirmed in the report ofthe Commissioner appointed by this Court and by the Chief Architect of thendmc. The said background note refers to the plan submitted by respondents 4 to 9 for construction of pucca mezzanine floor. The area chart givenby the said respondents showed that the original mezzanine floor was 38. 06 sq. mtrs. The proposed addition to the mezzanine floor was 145. 61 sq. mtrs , making the mezzanine floor of 183. 61 sq. mtrs. The information supplied alongwiththe said plan by respondents 4 to 9 is thus a clear admission of the large scalepucca mezzanine floor constructed by the respondents. The agenda note (R-1)has laid down some other conditions for the construction, which will be adverted to afterwards. However, it may be noted that the background agenda noteexpressly pointed out that the Plan Committee resolved to grant approval,subject to:. 1. The corrections in the Plan. 2. The party submitting complete ownership documents,. leaseplan and power of attorney in the name of the person -who hassigned the plans. 3 The party depositing Rs. 3,49,025. 00 as compounding charges. ( 5 ). In the letter dated 10. 12. 1987 the Chief Architect of the NDMC informed the respondents: "you are advised not to start the construction work at site withoutgetting the Plan released, otherwise the construction so carried outshall be reckoned as unauthorised and action as per law will betaken. " ( 6 ). A reminder was sent on 15. 3. 1988 by the Chief Architect, directingthe respondents to comply with the letter dated 10. 12. 1987 within 10 days,"failing which the conditional sanction granted by the Committee shall bedeemed to have been removed. " ( 7 ). By their communications dated 11. 1. 1988 (Annexure A), 12. 3. 1988 (Annexure B), 28. 3. 1988 (Annexure C), and 29. 3. 1988 (Annexure D), the petitioner informed the NDMC and the Delhi Administration of the illegal construction being carried out by the respondents and called upon them. to takeimmediate action. " ( 7 ). By their communications dated 11. 1. 1988 (Annexure A), 12. 3. 1988 (Annexure B), 28. 3. 1988 (Annexure C), and 29. 3. 1988 (Annexure D), the petitioner informed the NDMC and the Delhi Administration of the illegal construction being carried out by the respondents and called upon them. to takeimmediate action. The petitioner also informed the CBI by his letter dated6. 4. 1988 of the failure of the NDMC to take timely action to stop the illegalconstruction. Thereafter, the NDMC issued a show cause notice to the respondents for demolition. Although the NDMC had the plans of the respondentsfor the pucca construction of the mezzanine floor measuring 183. 61 sq. mtrs. in place of the existing 38 06 sq. mtrs. wooden mezzanine floor and the provisional sanction plan sanctioned on the basis of the plans submitted by therespondents, the demolition notice, strangely enough, omitted to includethe massive pucca construction of the mezzanine floor and other illegal constructions. But no action was taken to demolish the illegal constructions. Thepetitioner again reminded the NDMC on 15. 4. 1988. Thereafter, a second showcause notice was issued by the NDMC on 18. 4. 1988, again omitting the major structural changes and the constructions made by the respondents. Since noaction was taken by the NDMC even on the second show cause notice thepetitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition. The petitioner ssubmission is that the NDMC allowed the time to lapse by their inaction andthereby permitting the respondents to almost complete the illegal constructionby the time the writ petition was filed. ( 8 ). In the writ petition the petitioner prayed for a mandamus, directingthe NDMC to demolish the illegal construction and also prayed through anapplication directing the NDMC to seal the premises. After issuing the noticethis Court directed respondents 4 to 9 to maintain status-quo as regards construction/repairs and the NDMC was directed not to sanction any plan infavour of respondents 4 to 9. The NDMC was also directed to produce theoriginal file in relation to this matter. It is worthwhile to note that in spiteof this direction at the earliest stage of the writ petition; the NDMC neverproduced the original file. During the pendency of the writ petition respondents 4 to 9 file an appeal against the demolition notice to the Chief Engineer. Thereafter, on 25. 11. It is worthwhile to note that in spiteof this direction at the earliest stage of the writ petition; the NDMC neverproduced the original file. During the pendency of the writ petition respondents 4 to 9 file an appeal against the demolition notice to the Chief Engineer. Thereafter, on 25. 11. 1988 this Court appointed a Local Commissioner to makea report on the illegal construction. The report was duly made and the Localcommissioner confirmed most of the illegal constructions. On 13. 11. 1989 thecourt directed the Chief Architect to make a report in regard to unauthorisedconstruction. On 28. 4. 1989 the Chief Architect submitted a report. In the saidreport the Chief Architect confirmed the illegal construction of the mezzanine. floor. Strangely enough, the Chief Architect went out of the way by giving twomonths time to the respondents to settle the matters with the petitioner andstayed action of demolition. Since the matter was being looked into by this Courtand the petition was to be finally disposed of early, this Court did not accedeto the request of the petitioner for the sealing of the premises. Taking advantage of the fact that this Court did not direct the sealing of the premises as aninterim measure, respondents 4 to 9 filed a civil suit No. 398 of 1988 in thecourt of the Senior Sub-Judge for perpetual injunction against the NDMC forrestraining them from sealing the premises and for an injunction restrainingthem from stopping running of the restaurant. It may be noted that althoughthe writ petition was pending, the respondents did not make the petition a party in the said suit. The respondents, thus, secured an interim injunctionbehind the back of the petitioner from the Senior Sub-Judge when the samequestions were pending before this Court in the writ petition. The petitionershave, thereafter, filed a contempt petition against respondents 4 to 9 becauseof their attempt to over-reach this Court by filing a civil suit for permanentinjunction and securing an interin injunction. ( 9 ). Section 189 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 requires that noperson shall erect or re-erect or commence to erect or re-erect a building without the sanction of the Committee and every person who intends to erect or reerect any building shall give notice to the Committee in writing of suchintention. Alongwith e notice the site plan of the intended construction withthe specifications and character of the construction has to be stated. Alongwith e notice the site plan of the intended construction withthe specifications and character of the construction has to be stated. The construction has to be in accordance with the building bye-laws. Bye-law 6 of thebuilding bye-laws lays down the details of the requirement in regard to thefurnishing and sanction of the Plan. Such plans are required to be signed bythe owner and by the licenced architect. When only the alterations are to bemade in the existing building, the alterations are to be clearly stated. Section195 of the Punjab Municipal Act lays down the penalty for disobedience whenthe construction is made contrary to the Act and the bye-laws. Under the saidprovision the Committee has the power to direct demolition of the constructionmade without the sanction or where the sanction is refused, or in contraventionof the terms of the sanction or in contravention of the bye-laws. Sub-section 2of Section 195 renders the illegal and unauthorised construction apunishableoffence. A person can be sentenced to simple imprisonment upto six monthsand to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000. 00 for the illegal construction. Under Section195 (b) (1) the Committee is further empowered to direct the sealing of thepremises where the illegal construction is carried out. Section 195 (c) empowersthe Committee to seize the construction material, tools or machinery andscafolding and other things where the illegal and unauthorised construction isbeing carried out. As regards the mezzanine floor building bye-law No. 14. 8. 1states that the mezzanine floor shall be permitted only between the groundfloor and the first floor in the area upto 25 per cent of the actual covered areaon the ground floor. The Parliament passed the Delhi Fire Prevention andfire Safety Act in 1986. The Act provides that every building should have fireprevention and fire safety measures. While sanctioning the plan the localauthorities, such as NDMC, are required to take into consideration the statutory requirements in regard to fire safety measures. The Act empowers theauthorities to enter and inspect any building to inspect whether adequate firesafety measures are taken or not and to give a direction in that regard. Forsecuring the compliance of the directions the authorities under the Act areempowered to take police help, if necessary. Disobedience to the directions isa criminal offence punishable with imprisonment for six months and fine uptors 50,000. 00. If it is a continuing offence a file of Rs. 5,000. 00 is leviable fordisobedience per day. Forsecuring the compliance of the directions the authorities under the Act areempowered to take police help, if necessary. Disobedience to the directions isa criminal offence punishable with imprisonment for six months and fine uptors 50,000. 00. If it is a continuing offence a file of Rs. 5,000. 00 is leviable fordisobedience per day. ( 10 ). It is not denied that the clearance of the authorities under thedelhi Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Act, 1986 was not secured by respondents 4 to 9 when they carried out the illegal construction. This was particularly necessary in the context of the fire which had already taken place in thepremises in 1987, i. e. after the Act had come into operation. The respondentsarc running a restaurant which is frequented by large number of people andabsence of fire safety measures is bound to endanger the life and safety of thevisiting public It may be noted that all the requirements of the Punjab Municipal Act and the building bye-laws in regard to construction and r constructionassume that it is only the owner of the building who can. carry out such construction, But, even if the owner has carried out the constructionhe must do so according to the statutory requirements of the buildingbye-laws and fire safety requirements under the Delhi Fire Prevention and Firesafety Act, 1986. A tenant or a licensee or a trespasser cannot carry out any construction in the premises of their occupation without the express permission of the owner. This is the requirement of general law. The questionwhether the construction carried out by the tenant is according to the bye-lawsor not is completely irrelevant. A construction without the authorisation fromowner is per se illegal. Counsel for respondents 4 to 9 had, with the help ofbuilding bye-laws, tried to argue that there was no violation of the bye-laws. In the absence of the authorisation from the owner a tenant cannot be permitted to raise such arguments. But, even otherwise the construction carried outby the respondents is completely contrary to tile provisional sanction plan. On10. 12. 1987 the Chief Architect (respondent No. 2) had clearly informed the petitioners that the sanction of the plan was subject to "the party submittingcomplete ownership documents, lease, plan and power of attorney in the nameof the person who has signed the plan. " They were also warned not to startthe construction without getting the plans released. On10. 12. 1987 the Chief Architect (respondent No. 2) had clearly informed the petitioners that the sanction of the plan was subject to "the party submittingcomplete ownership documents, lease, plan and power of attorney in the nameof the person who has signed the plan. " They were also warned not to startthe construction without getting the plans released. The mezzanine floor,according to the bye-laws, is permitted only upto 25 per cent of the groundfloor, is to be used only for storing purposes. The respondents have almost-covered an area almost equivalent to the area on the ground floor and hasconstructed a pucca mezzanine floor and are using it for serving the generalpublic as a restaurant. The massive construction carried out by respondents 4to 9 with major structural changes is, thus, thoroughly illegal and unauthorised. ( 11 ). Counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has notproduced the original plan. Therefore, it cannot be said that the constructioncarried out by the respondents was illegal. There is no substance in this submission. We had directed the NDMC to produce the original record and thefiles, but they were not produced. The agenda note (R-1) has stated. "theold relevant building plans file is not available in the record. " The NDMC issupposed to keep the original plans in safe custody, but they have failed to doso. But for the immediate purpose it was not necessary to go to the originalbuilding plan because therespondents had themselves submitted the building plan on the basis of which provisional sanction was given to them. In the areachart given alongwith the said plan the respondents had clearly stated thatthe original-mezzanine floor was 38. 06 sq. meters only and the constructionwhich they proposed to have was a pucca mezzanine floor of 183. 61 sq. meters. The respondents, through their affidavit, have raised some objections to thelocal commissioner s report. We have considered them. The principal illegalconstruction around which the- arguments revolved were in regard to themassive pucca mezzanine floor constructed by the respondents. The report ofthe Chief Architect confirms the construction of the puca mezzanine floor. The respondents have themselves admitted this position in the plans submitted by them, as pointed out above. The argument seems to be an after-thought andis, therefore, rejected. ( 12 ). The other submissions on behalf of the respondents are that theconstruction carried out by them are within. the permissible limits of the bye-laws. The respondents have themselves admitted this position in the plans submitted by them, as pointed out above. The argument seems to be an after-thought andis, therefore, rejected. ( 12 ). The other submissions on behalf of the respondents are that theconstruction carried out by them are within. the permissible limits of the bye-laws. We have already held that a tenant who carries out the constructionwithout the permission of the landlord cannot be heard to say that the construction. is according to the bye-laws. What has been done by the respondentsis to convert the mezzanine floor into a pucca floor, raising the height of themezzanine floor by lowering down the ground floor itself, raising the boundarywalls by 4 ft. , construction of the cemented slabs, construction of an additionallatrine and a urinal. These massive constructions, making structural changescan, by no stretch of imagination, be described as permissible alterations orrestoration of the premises after the fire, as was faintly suggested during thecourse of the arguments by the Counsel for the respondents. ( 13 ). ANOTHER submission of the respondents is that the writ petition isnot maintainable when the suit filed by the petitioners is pending and theappellate authority had remanded the matter to NDMC for further action. This submission is devoid of any merit. The nature of reliefs claimed in thesuit and in the writ petition are quite different. In any case the Counsel for thepetitioner had stated that there were withdrawing the said suit. As regards thedirection of the appellate authority, which was given on 4. 4. 1990, nothing isbeing done by the NDMC. Considering the inaction of the NDMC at all thestages, it would be futile to expect any meaningful action on the part of thendmc. ( 14 ). Counsel for the petitioner has strongly urged that the illegal constructions were done by the respondents with the active connivance of theofficers of the NDMC. From the record we find good deal of substance in thissubmission. First of all the original sanction plan as submitted by the petitioners and the entire file was not safely preserved. The NDMC failed to keepa watch on the illegal construction being carried out by the respondents inspite of the repeated letters by the petitioner. They deliberately omitted themajor illegal constructions from the two show cause notices and failed to takeaction of sealing and demolition during the time when the construction wasgoing on. The NDMC failed to keepa watch on the illegal construction being carried out by the respondents inspite of the repeated letters by the petitioner. They deliberately omitted themajor illegal constructions from the two show cause notices and failed to takeaction of sealing and demolition during the time when the construction wasgoing on. When the Plan submitted by the respondents was given provisionalsanction, the NDMC asked the respondents to deposit Rs. 3,49,025. 00 as compounding charges. It was completely contrary to the bye-laws and illegal onthe part of the NDMC because the compounding charges, if at all, can beworked out only on the basis of construction illegally done. The officers of thendmc had already decided before hand to permit the illegal construction andto collect the compounding fees from the respondents. The respondents quicklyavailed of this illegal action on the part of the officers of NDMC and depositedthe said amount to show as if they had complied with the conditions of grantingthe provisional sanction. The respondents failed to produce the authorisationfrom the petitioner owner or the ownership documents or lease and thendmc closed its eyes on this major infirmity. The actions of demolitionwere not taken expeditiously, permitting the respondents to abuse the process of law by filing appeals and suits. Lastly, in spits of the repeated directionsby this Court the original file in regard to the provisional sanction of the planof the respondents and action taken against them was not produced. We haveno hesitation in holding that the NDMC and the concerned officials have committed gross deeliction of duty. ( 15 ). The next question is what is the mandamus we should issue to thendmc. Counsel for the respondents had submitted that the only lawfulcourse open of compounding the illegal construction be adopted by acceptingthe compounding fees. They have referred to some decisions of the Highcourts and the Supreme Court. The High Court decisions have hardly anyrelevance since they are pronounced on different sets of facts. There is no decision which lays down that where a tenant without the permission of the ownerillegally carries out massive constructions and structural changes, the authoritiesunder the Punjab Municipal Act is powerless to direct demolition of such aconstruction. In the Express Newspaper Case the Supreme Court has directedthe NDMC to compound the illegal constructions which could be compoundedand to proceed according to law for the illegal constructions. In the Express Newspaper Case the Supreme Court has directedthe NDMC to compound the illegal constructions which could be compoundedand to proceed according to law for the illegal constructions. It may be notedthat the facts of the said case are quite different from the present one. Indianexpress was in the position of an owner of the building holding the leaseholdrights of the plot, whereas in the present case the illegal construction has beencarried out by the tenant without the permission of the landlord. ( 16 ). Since the construction carried out by the respondents, mentionedabove, is completely illegal, we direct the NDMC to demolish the same. Thedemolition is necessary for the additional reason that the construction is madewithout the clearance under the Delhi Fire Prevention and Fire Safety Act,1986, thus, endangering the lives of the public visiting the restaurant. Allowingillegal construction of this nature by the NDMC and carrying out an activitysuch as a restaurant by the respondents in the said illegal construction are notonly contrary to law but public interest. The NDMC and its officers are guiltyof dereliction of their statutory duty. The respondents 4 to 9 are guilty of trying to over-reach this Court by securing the injunction order from the Sub-Judge when the writ petition was pending in this Court and this Court wasseized of the matter. We, therefore, impose cost of Rs. 5,000. 00 each on thendmc and respondents 4 to 9. ( 17 ). The writ petition is allowed with costs. Rule is made absolute. Counsel fee Rs. 2. 000. 00.