Sanjeev Anand & ORS. v. Municipal Corporation Of Delhi & ANR.

$~3 * IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI + SANJEEV ANAND & ORS.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr. Vasu Goyal, Advocate (through video-conferencing) versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Ranjeet Pandey, Standing Counsel for MCD with Mr.

Manjeet Shehrawat, Advocate.

Mr. Mrinal Kumar Sharma, Advocate for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

O R D E R

% 17.04.2026 1.

The present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to the respondent no.1, i.e., Municipal Corporation of Delhi ('MCD'), to exercise its powers under Section 348 and 349 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 ('DMC Act, 1957'), and immediately seal and thereafter demolish the entire built-up property situated at Ward No.2687, Ward No.1, Ram Lal Chandok Marg, Kashmere Gate, Delhi-110006 (hereinafter 'subject property').

2.

Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the respondent no.2, in order to join the two shops together, removed the load bearing wall, having dimensions of 10 ft. in length and 16 inches wide, between the two shops, and the same led to forming of major cracks in the building of subject property. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

Thus, the condition of the building further deteriorated making it unfit for human inhabitation.

3.

It is submitted that due to the building being old, and in a dilapidated condition, removal of a load bearing wall on the ground floor has resulted in the entire structure being on the verge of collapsing. 4.

It is submitted that the petitioner have received Advisory Notices from the MCD requesting the tenants to vacate the premises. 5.

Attention of this Court has been drawn to Annexure P-4 of the writ petition, which are Advisories dated 30th August, 2024 and 8th November, 2011, issued by the office of the Executive Engineer (M-II), City SP Zone, MCD, wherein, immediate corrective measures and repairs were directed to be taken with regards to the subject property. 6.

The relevant extracts from Advisory dated 8th November, 2024 is set out below:

7.

It is clear from the said Advisory that the dangerous/ dilapidated condition pertains to first and second floor of the subject property. 8.

In the status report filed by the respondent no.1/ MCD, it is stated that the subject property is in a repairable condition. The relevant extract from the said status report is set out below:

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

9.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2 submits that there is an ongoing litigation between respondent no.2 and the petitioner before the Civil Court, wherein an interim order dated 30th July, 2025 was passed in favour of respondent no.2, restraining the petitioner herein (defendant in the suit) from interfering in the ingress and egress of respondent no. 2 (plaintiff in the suit).

10.

Taking note of the aforesaid submissions and particularly the status report filed on behalf of respondent no.1/ MCD, this court is not inclined to grant the relief sought in the present petition. 11.

The present petition is disposed of, while directing the respondent no.1/ MCD to continue to keep a vigil on the subject property by conducting regular inspections, so as to ensure that the subject property remains habitable. AMIT BANSAL, J APRIL 17, 2026 at The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.