$~8. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7607/2016 and CM APPL. 31297/2016 1. MAHANDER KUMAR GUPTA Through: Mr. Preet Pal Singh, Advocate ........ Petitioner
versus NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ORS........ RESPONDENTS
Through: Ms. Sakshi Popli, Advocate with Mr. Jitendra Kr. Tripathi, Advocate for R-1. Ms. Neelam Singh, Advocate for R-2 with SI Vijay Pal, PS Tughlak Road. Mr. Ravi Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sachin Jain, Advocate for R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI % This order is in continuation of the order dated 04.10.2016, on which ORDER
2010.2016 date, at the request of the counsels for the parties, a Local Commissioner was appointed to submit a report with regard to the nature of the construction activity/repair work undertaken by the respondent No.3 on the ground, first and second floors of the subject premises.
2. The Local Commissioner has filed a report under index dated 07.10.2016, stating inter alia that she had inspected the premises on two occasions, i.e., on 05.10.2016 and 06.10.2016 and had taken photographs of the exterior and interior of the premises. She has reported that no holes were noticed in the ceiling of the ground floor; the second and third floors were found to be unoccupied and uninhabitable in their present state. On the W.P.(C)7607/2016 Page 1 of 2 second floor, the Local Commissioner had noticed two holes on the terrace, which had been covered with a thick green plastic sheet with a couple of bricks placed therein. Enclosed with the report are photographs taken on the spot. The holes on the terrace are visible at pages 32 to 34 of the report.
3. Mr. Gupta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent No.3 states that holes are being repaired apart from conducting other repair work undertaken on the terrace of the first floor. He assures the court that the entire work shall be completed within one week.
4. In view of the aforesaid assurance, nothing further survives in the present petition, which is disposed of alongwith the pending application.
5. Needless to state that if the respondent No.3 delays/refuses to complete the work within one week, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the Court for appropriate orders.
6. This order is without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to initiate appropriate legal action against the respondent No.3 for claiming damages.
6. It may also be clarified that the respondent No.1/NDMC shall be entitled to take appropriate action in respect of the premises in the event any unauthorised construction is noticed. HIMA KOHLI, J OCTOBER20 2016 rkb/ap W.P.(C)7607/2016 Page 2 of 2