'Municipality Can't Compel Commercial Use Of Floor To Permit Reconstruction' : Supreme Court Imposes Rs 10 Lakh Cost On Delhi Civic Body

The Supreme Court ordered South Delhi's Municipal Body (now Municipal Corporation of Delhi) to grant Rs. 10 Lakh compensation for harassing a family for over 15 years by refusing permission to rebuild their 85-year-old dilapidated house.

The respondents sought to demolish an eighty-five-year-old dilapidated house at Darya Ganj, New Delhi and construct a new residential house. Plans were submitted to the South Delhi Municipal Corporation in 2010, but no decision was taken. The respondents then applied to the Tribunal under Section 347A of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act,1957, which granted deemed sanction. The SDMC's appeal and subsequent writ petition in the Delhi High Court were dismissed, leading to the present appeal.

The SDMC argued that under the relevant Master Plan (MPD-2021) and mixed-use regulations, new construction on an old residential plot abutting a notified street must provide commercial use on the ground floor and residential use above. Thus, simply putting up a purely residential structure was impermissible.

The respondents contended that their property had long been used for residential purposes, they were not financially able to relocate, and they sought only residential use and plan approval. Three authorities (the Tribunal, the ADJ, and the High Court) had all found in their favour.

The bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K.V. Viswanathan rejected the civic body's argument that the new construction must compulsorily include a commercial shop on the ground floor.

“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.”, the Court observed.

“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.", the Court added.

The Supreme Court approved the High Court's view that the owners cannot be compelled to convert the ground floor of their residential accommodation to a commercial unit.

The Court expressed dismay at the civic body's inhuman attitude upon noting that the Respondents are forced to live in an 85-year-old dilapidated house, which may fall at any time, having no regard for the safety and security of the family, calling it harassment. Also, the litigation itself is now 15 years old, and now the respondent will have to incur additional expenses for construction, the Court noted.

“We also looked into the photographs of the subject house of the respondents. It is in a dilapidated condition and any time may collapse. 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.", the court said.

Taking a stern view of the "arbitrary and high-handed manner" in which the appellant harassed the respondents, the Court imposed costs of Rs.10,00,000 (Rupees Ten Lakh only) to be paid to the respondents on or before 17.12.2025.

Also, it directed the Appellant-Civic body to approve the residential plan furnished by the Respondent within four weeks.

Cause Title: SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER VERSUS BHARAT BHUSHAN JAIN (DEAD) THR. LRS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1121

Click here to read/download the order

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Vandana Sehgal, AOR Mr. Mohit Yadav, Adv. Mr. Arun Pratap Singh Rajawat, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Santosh Paul, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhay Kumar, AOR Mr. Abhay Jain, Adv. Mr. Shagun Ruhil, Adv. Mr. Karan Chopra, Adv. Ms. Pooja Rai, Adv.