Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |    

Delhi High Court Upholds Property Rights and Orders Restoration of Water Tanks and Fire Safety Equipment on Building's Roof"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Delhi High Court has ruled in favor of property rights and ordered the restoration of essential facilities, including water tanks and fire safety equipment, on the roof of Akarshan Bhawan. The court's decision comes after a dispute over the use of the building's roof and unilateral removal of critical infrastructure.

The court observed, "The installation of the fire equipment and overhead water tanks are essential requirements for the use and enjoyment of the subject building and could not have been unilaterally removed by Respondent No. 4." The removal of these facilities had endangered the safety of the building's occupants.

The case revolved around the rights of the Appellants, who sought a declaration and injunction against the Respondents from making structural changes to the building without statutory permissions. The Appellants claimed easement rights for the maintenance of water tanks and the lift room on the roof.

Respondent No. 4 had purchased the roof rights but acknowledged the Appellants' right to access the roof for maintenance in a compromise deed. Despite this, Respondent No. 4 unilaterally removed the water tanks and fire safety equipment in October 2022.

The court emphasized the importance of these facilities, stating, "The reinstallation of the said equipment is necessary for the renewal of the fire safety certificate," and that "use of toilet facilities in a building is a basic human right."

Furthermore, the court directed that if Respondent No. 4 obtains building sanction for constructing an additional floor, the common facilities must be shifted to the roof of the new floor, but until then, Appellants must have uninterrupted access to the existing roof.

The judgment also mandated that the Appellants address deficiencies in fire safety and obtain the necessary Fire Safety Certificate. They were directed to provide a valid license for the existing lift in the building.

Date of Decision: 1 February 2024

Akarshan Bhawan VS Sushil Kumar Jain And Others

 

Similar News